Mayor Larry O'Brien on How to Build Consensus

"People who get on side with me win, people who don't get on side with me lose."

The above is a quote from the Mayor of Ottawa, Larry O'Brien. He said this in the final ten minutes of an hour plus long interview conducted by the OPP as they investigated him on charges of bribery and influence peddling. I don't know what, if anything this comment says about his guilt or innocence. However, it does speak to the type of leader he is. Here is someone who thinks the world is divided into winners, those who agree with him, and the losers, those unfortunate souls who may see things differently than he does. So much for the win-win approach to consensus building.

In an Ottawa Citizen editorial titled "Macho Man" Kate Heartfield discusses another quote from this very telling interview. In it, Larry O'Brien describes his first meeting with mayoralty candidate Terry Kilrea, several months prior to the November, 2006 election.

"It was a big dick swinging contest with me telling him I could likely beat him and him telling me he could likely beat me and uh him telling me all the good things that he had going for him in terms of of um lists of of supporters lists of people who might want to vote for him ... and myself I was sort of swinging the dick back saying that I thought I was you know gonna be a better candidate for him because I was a successful businessman who had who was um well respected in the community ..."

Once elected mayor, Larry O'Brien told us he wanted Ottawa to be redefined as a "city with swagger". Is this the type of testosterone fueled "swagger" he was talking about? Is this the type of leadership Ottawa needs to guide it into the 21st Century?

Snowing us on the budget

Snowing us on the budget

The budget forged last December was less a budget and more a series of wishes. It did not take into account money for a snowy day."

The Ottawa Citizen, Published: Thursday, March 20, 2008

It is hard to disagree with the suggestion that the taxpayers of Ottawa have been "snowed" in more ways than one recently. After detailing the bizarre tactics engaged by City Council and the Mayor to try to convince us that we really could get something for nothing, The Ottawa Citizen points us in the right direction when it concludes:

We simply need better city budgeting and a better tax system. Property taxes just don't work. They leave cities in constant shortfall. Premier Dalton McGuinty, are you listening?

Long before the dust has settled (or the snow has finally melted in early July) from this current mess we need to start a serious conversation in this city, and in all municipalities across this country, about the structural flaws endemic in our current system of municipal financing.

Canada stands out amongst OECD countries in how it expects urban centres to be financed almost exclusively by the regressive property tax system. Ontario further exacerbates the problem with its imposition of social welfare costs on this strained tax base.

Numerous expert commentators in the arcane area of municipal taxation have pointed this out to us. In Local Taxation: A Comparative Analysis Dr. Harry Kitchen, of Trent University points out that as of 2001 Canadian municipalities derived more than 91% of their total tax revenue from property taxes. In comparison, the average amongst the federal states of the OECD was 48.8% and within the unitary states it was a paltry 31.8% of municipal revenue. Drs. Enid Bird and Richard Slack of the Institute of Municipal Finance and Governance at the University of Toronto tell us that among OECD countries Canada has the highest property tax to GDP ratio in the world, at 4.1%, followed by the U.S. and Australia at 2.9% and 2.5% respectively.(1)

These commentators are not suggesting that we need to stop using property taxes to fund municipal expenditures. They are saying, however, that we need to expand our horizons so it isn't our only source of revenue. Jurisdictions the world over use have reduced their dependence on the regressive property tax system to fund municipalities. Canada, and particularly Ontario, lags far behind in this regard.

For the property taxes that we do collect the Green Party of Ontario proposes that part of the solution lies in moving toward a system that assesses land value, but not the value of buildings and improvements made to such buildings, to determine municipal tax rates. This would vastly simplify the responsibilities of MPAC, as the relative value of building improvements would not be considered in their calculations.

Such a plan would encourage development more along the lines of a municipality’s official plan. Land value is proportional not only to its quantity, but also to the scale and type of development permitted. It would create a disincentive to land speculation, as the property would be taxed according to its full potential for use, as reflected in its assessment and class.

It also would remove the disincentive of higher taxes on home improvement. A property owner is more likely to invest in best building practices, and erect a carbon neutral facility with the threat of higher taxes removed. This enhances not only the value of the building, but the community at large, with cleaner air.

Depending almost exclusively on our current regressive type of tax system understandably encourages short term reactionary thinking on the part of many voters. From year to year a significant number of property owners are justifiably outraged at the level of increase of their municipal tax bill. These increases have no relationship either to their ability to pay nor to the cost of the service being provided. They howl and scream to their councillor, the media, and who ever else will listen. Much newspaper ink is spilt as a media frenzy is created with everyone proclaiming "Our taxes are too high already! We can't afford these increases!" Newspapers are sold, talk radio screams, and local politicians get up on their hind legs and proclaim "Zero means zero!" Meanwhile, our infrastructure crumbles, the snow piles up, and the next news item insists that the feds or the province must help the cities.

What is so fascinating is that all these taxes, be they federal provincial or municipal, are paid by the same taxpayer. Why is it that we continue to believe that if our federal and/or provincial tax rates go down, that somehow, as if by magic, our municipal taxes should go down as well. One of the reasons our income taxes went down was because the higher levels of government thought they could look like tax cutting heroes by ultimately downloading costs onto the most regressive and unbalanced form of taxation, namely the municipal property tax system.

As taxpayers we all need to give our collective heads a really good shake. We have been snowed, not only by our municipal council's failure to engage in effective and meaningful budgeting, but by every politician, be they municipal, provincial or federal, who has promised us something for nothing. As taxpayers to all of these levels of government we need to demand that they start to work together immediately to re balance how our municipalities are funded. The current system was designed more than 100 hundred years ago when Canada was essentially a rural outpost with a few small developing urban areas. Things have changed dramatically since then but our method of funding municipalities, where the vast majority of us now live, has not. A substantive overhaul is urgently required.

Smart homeowners plan for proper maintenance of their homes. Smart cities should be able to as well, and look forward to making the investments needed to ensure the long term sustainability of the place we call home. Only then will we start to bring down our costs over the long term. Fiscal responsibility does not mean spending the least amount of money every year. It means spending the correct amount of money every year, so that in the long term we spend the least amount of money.

Council cool to complaint about turf war

Council cool to complaint about turf war

Council cool to complaint about turf war
Harder stepped in to help constituents in colleague's riding"

Apparently, Glenn Brooks doesn't appreciate involvement of those "outside" his ward in his "local" issues. With all due respect, Councillor Brooks needs to understand that, in a democracy, we not only have the right to be involved, but that it is healthier for our community when more of us see it as an obligation of citizenship to express our concerns.

The decision making process of how Manotick is developed may have profound effects on my community of Overbrook. We are continually in the process of setting the rules for how intensification of our city will proceed. What is ultimately planned for Manotick will be part of the precedent for future development in Ottawa. Whether Councillor Brooks likes it or not, that concerns all of us.

Responding to Questions from the City Centre Coalition

1. Cities are seriously underfunded for the responsibilities they have been mandated. We favour uploading financial responsibility from cities to the Province for services previously downloaded. What will you do to resolve this longstanding issue?

The province must immediately assume responsibility for the full cost of social services. They should not be imposed on the municipal tax base. Municipal taxes currently have no relationship either to the cost of the service provided or to the ability of an individual to pay. Because of this inherent unfairness, taxpayers understandably put intense pressure on their councilors to eliminate tax increases. This leads to short term thinking on the part of city councils across the province. I am very interested in proposals developed by the Ottawa based Federation of Community Associations (FCA). As an MPP I would work hard for a full review of the provincially imposed municipal tax system.

2. We, along with other organizations, have filed a bump-up request regarding the proposed widening of the Queensway through various central sections of Ottawa. Our request is that the Environmental Assessment on the proposed project be done at the proper level of thoroughness in order to assure adequate protection of neighbourhoods through which the highway passes. Do you support our request?

I strongly support your request. The Green Party of Ontario is committed to cleaner,
cheaper, more efficient and safer forms of transportation. Ontario’s current transportation system is inefficient, expensive, polluting, dangerous and unsustainable. TheGreen Party envisions a transportation system that does not reduce our quality of life. Our Plan for sustainability would Divert 75% of all money budgeted for new highway construction until 2012 to public transit such as GO Transit, Toronto Transit Commission and Ottawa’s OCTranspo. This will fund the service improvements, expansion and infrastructure renewal required to create a world-class transportation system, relieve gridlock and eliminate the need for new highways.

3. We have asked the Minister of the Environment not to approve the inadequate Environmental Assessment done on a proposed project to build a highway through the Alta Vista Corridor – a project that would cause irreparable harm to communities bordering the corridor and to those downstream that would have the traffic dumped on them. Do you support our request?

I strongly support your request. Transportation systems must be designed to integrate well with the surrounding communities and bring us together not split us apart.

4. Very little provincial attention is paid toward promoting cycling and
   educating all road users about cycling safety. While the Ministry of
   Health Promotion pays much attention to helmet safety, such programs
   reach only people who already cycle. Do you support provincial funding
   for expanded cycling facilities and for programming to encourage
   bicycle use and awareness?

Yes I do. I am an active cyclist and enjoy cycle touring. It is a sustainable practice that enhances one’s health.

Responding to Questions from the Manor Park Chronicle

Manor Park Chronicle

September, 2007 Edition

Questions for Ottawa-Vanier, October 10, 2007 Provincial Election

Q1: The NCC and the governments of Ontario and Quebec are jointly funding an Environmental Assessment of proposed locations for one or more new interprovincial crossings. There has been considerable public comment on this issue from politicians at all three levels and from the general public.

Do you favour any of the options under study? Do you believe that Kettle Island would be a viable location for a new crossing?

Word Limit: 275

I currently do not favour any of the options under study. There is a fundamental flaw in the Terms of Reference of the Environmental Assessment. They are based on the assumption that we should continue to encourage and expect growth in demand for automobile and trucking transportation infrastructure. As we are all well aware, Canada, like every other nation, needs to develop and implement action plans that respond to the twin threats of climate change and dwindling carbon based energy supplies. Such action plans therefore, need to point us in the direction of reducing, not increasing our dependence on the personal automobile and reliance on truck transport. Any future transportation infrastructure investments need to recognize this reality.

The need to remove truck transport from downtown Ottawa provides us with the opportunity to make wise long-term investments in our infrastructure. Our first goal should be to reduce demand for automobile infrastructure by ensuring that a seamless inter-provincial mass transit system is developed. Second, recognizing that rail is a far more efficient use of energy, we must begin to plan now for greater reliance on it as opposed to trucks for the transportation of goods. Third, any new infrastructure should be tolled to appropriate cost to users.

I am not in favour of the Kettle Island crossing. According to studies already completed by the NCC and the former Region it has been shown to be the most costly, not only financially, but also environmentally and socially. We need a solution that removes truck traffic from our communities. As your MPP I would work for a transportation infrastructure that brings us to together, instead of splitting us apart.

Q2: Zoning decisions made at the municipal level may be challenged at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Since the OMB is a quasi-judicial body, a successful case usually depends on legal counsel and expert witnesses.

What are your views on the role and structure of the OMB?

Word Limit: 200

Ontario is unique within Canada in having this type of oversight of municipal decision-making. Like our antiquated municipal tax system, it has its origins in late 19^th Century patriarchal Ontario. It was developed at a time when the only way to legally deal with many municipal matters was through private bills in the Provincial Legislature. Obviously, times have changed and our municipalities have matured. Unfortunately, the OMB has not; as it continues to intervene in the same manner it did over 100 years ago.

Being quasi-judicial it is by definition undemocratic and arbitrary. Far too often a local community will, through democratic process, choose a particular development path, only to be threatened with appeal to the OMB. Local communities are often at a distinct disadvantage as they seldom can match the resources of a deep-pocketed developer.

As your MPP I would propose a thorough review of the mandate and purpose of the OMB. We must start by looking at best practices in other jurisdictions in Canada. How has the rest of the country been served without such an oversight body? Maybe they know something we don’t.

Q3: Municipalities across Ontario are struggling to meet their commitments within their current taxation capabilities. The basis for calculating property assessment for taxation purposes has also been controversial.

What services should be funded by property taxes?

What is the best method to finance municipalities?

Should there be changes to the structure and responsibilities of MPAC (the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation)?

Word Limit: 350

The municipal tax system in Ontario, like the OMB, is a quaint relic of the 19^th Century that has not kept up with the times. The Green Party of Ontario believes that part of the solution lies in moving toward a system that assesses land value, but not the value of buildings and improvements made to such buildings, to determine municipal tax rates. This would vastly simplify the responsibilities of MPAC, as the relative value of building improvements would not be considered in their calculations.

Our plan would encourage development more along the lines of a municipality’s official plan. Land value is proportional not only to its quantity, but also to the scale and type of development permitted. Our proposal would create a disincentive to land speculation, as the property would be taxed according to its full potential for use, as reflected in its assessment and class.

This removes the disincentive of higher taxes on home improvement. A property owner is more likely to invest in best building practices, and erect a carbon neutral facility with the threat of higher taxes removed. This enhances not only the value of the building, but the community at large with cleaner air.

Another part of the solution lies in apportioning taxes according to the cost of specific services provided. Dense communities are generally less costly to serve than sprawling communities. We need a method to recognize this fact when tax bills are calculated.

Changes also are needed to the Provincial Development Charges Act. It is much too restrictive in its definition of what costs municipalities can recoup from Greenfield development. This needs to be changed to ensure that the full cost of urban sprawl is assessed to those who create it.

The cost of services that involve income redistribution and equity-related goals should not be borne by the municipal taxpayer. Therefore the provincial government should take back responsibility for 100% of the funding of all provincially mandated social service programs. The Liberals have had four years to fix the problem created by the Harris Conservatives, yet they have failed to act.

Q4: The provision of a secure electricity supply, while minimizing environmental impacts, is an important issue in Ontario. Ontario has a growing population, yet an aging electricity generation and transmission infrastructure.

What do you propose should be done on both the electricity supply and demand sides?

Word Limit: 175

As Ontario and the world confronts dwindling non-renewable energy reserves we must refocus our strategy on developing local renewable resources.

Unfortunately the province seems determined to make a critical investment error as it considers betting the farm on a $45-billion investment in nuclear energy. It takes at least 12 years to bring a nuclear plant on stream. Historically they have been drastically over-budget and never as reliable as predicted.

Instead, we must invest now in local communities. We need to remove electric element space and water heating from hundreds of thousands of Ontario homes. We must provide real-time feedback to consumers on consumption. We need to aggressively push the installation of solar hot water and geo-thermal earth energy systems.

We need changes to our building and electrical codes and the Planning Act that will mandate the highest energy efficiency of all future construction and development. It is much cheaper, more secure, and more environmentally friendly to conserve a megawatt than produce one. Our future energy security depends on a strong localized energy infrastructure.

Talking to Ottawa City Council About Their "Transformation" Agenda

Good afternoon. My name is Leonard Poole. I speak to you today as the Green Party candidate for the riding of Ottawa-Vanier in the upcoming provincial election of October 10.

It was with considerable fanfare and sense of excitement in the air that the 20/20 visioning exercise was launched as the new City of Ottawa was formed.

I was just beginning my volunteer work with the Overbrook-Forbes Community Resource Centre and the Community Council of Overbrook.

I was impressed with the thrust of the proposals. After widespread consultation the clear consensus was that we needed to incorporate long term sustainable practices into the very fabric of our decision making process.

Today I shall first explain the fundamental roadblock I see to our efforts to effectively implement our 20/20 vision. Secondly I shall speak to how these few pages in this Strategic Directions document work against promotion of sustainable practices. Finally, I shall urge you to lobby for a complete overhaul of our method of municipal taxation to move us toward true sustainable thinking in our municipalities.

The flaw in the 20/20 exercise was that although we agreed to lofty goals; we did not incorporate a process to take us there. We did not recognize that to move toward sustainability we must have a mechanism that captures all costs. It is accepted by numerous municipalities worldwide that every decision made must account for not only the immediate financial impacts, but also the long-term environmental and social costs, or the triple bottom line.

Most of us remember the horrendous 2004 budget process. Everyone was focused on ???fiscal responsibility???. Many, including a number of you around this table, insisted on a zero percent tax increase. Representing the Community Council of Overbrook, I brought the following definition of ???fiscal responsibility???.

For some it means spending the least amount of money, every year, and do whatever it takes to avoid a tax increase. In our view, it means spending the correct amount of money today to ensure that in the long term we spend the least amount of money.

Our point was that when you only focus on minimizing immediate financial costs you inevitably incur larger costs in the long term. In essence, we download our social and environmental expenses on to future generations. Time and again we have been guilty of this as we seek the lowest possible tax rate and view only the immediate financial implications.

Time restrictions permit me to only highlight what I view as the most egregious aspects of this document.

1. Page 6, point C3. Close the gap, in an environmentally responsible manner if possible, in general facilities and park renewal by 10% per year. This is outrageous. Why should we be leaving ourselves an opening to behave in anything other than an environmentally responsible manner? A clear example of passing our problems onto future generations.
2. Page 6, point D4. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20% by 2012. Is it necessary to point out how meaningless this is? Rather than setting an aggressive minimum goal of reduction, it tells us to limit our efforts to no more than 20% improvement. I thought we wanted to be a city with swagger that could boast of its achievements? Instead we can boast that we did nothing and still met our stated goals!
3. Page 8, point b4. Deliver agreed-to level of service at the lowest possible cost. Although sounding like a laudable goal, this statement speaks only to immediate financial costs. We assure ourselves of higher long-term costs when we fail to capture the full environmental and social implications of our decisions. Once again, we burden future generations with the responsibility of dealing with our short-term thinking. Reference to a move to a method of triple bottom line accounting procedures is a glaring omission from this document.
4. Page 9, Sustainable Finances. Once again, it is what is missing that stands out. The fundamental problem for city financing is the method of taxation. It is an antiquated, 19th Century system that is completely ill suited for the 21st Century. The amount that a taxpayer is assessed has absolutely no relationship either to their ability to pay or to the cost of the service provided to them. It is calculated on the basis of their possession of an unrealized capital gain. Is it any wonder that taxpayers are outraged at any tax increase? This puts intense pressure on all of you around this table to think short term to eliminate tax increases. I urge you to include in this document a commitment to join with other municipalities to lobby the Provincial Government very strongly to develop a more progressive, transparent, and fair municipal taxation system. This is a key issue that I shall speak to during my election campaign and what I shall do once elected to the Ontario Legislature.

I conclude with the words of Zen master Lin Chi who told us over 1,000 years ago,

"The miracle is to walk on earth."

Our responsibility is to ensure that future generations may continue to do so. Finally, I ask that you consider my personal vision of a Greening, Sustainable world that is part of my written submission to you.