Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Archive for the ‘Discussion Topic’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Discussion Topic: Traffic

Posted by auroracitizen on November 23, 2010

Another key issue in the Aurora community is the traffic woes and increasing volume due to new development both in Aurora and Newmarket. This topic has been the focus of considerable discussion over the years — but the situation continues to get worse. Over the years we have seen initiatives that include;

  • traffic studies
  • traffic calming in 1 select neighbourhood
  • addition of stop signs and no left turn signs
  • speed limit changes
  • use of advance signals
  • road widening (Bathurst)
  • attempts to re-direct traffic
  • redevelopment of roads (i.e. St Johns)

Yet in spite of all these initiatives (and more we couldn’t remember) traffic problems continue to affect our community — although when compared to a 2+ hour commute from downtown, some might say we have it pretty good.

A readers shared this experience

Here is a pet peeve of mine that is starting to become a problem for me and others.

If you are driving south on Bathurst in the morning around 7:45am, as you approach Bloomington there are cars pulled over in the right turn lane (where there is a bus stop). Turns out that these cars are driven by parents of kids that are taking a bus. Rather than let the poor kids stand outside, they sit in the cars – idling – blocking the turn lane to turn right onto Bloomington. Not only are they blocking the turn lane, on more than one occasion I have seen a car trying to pull into the turn lane at a higher than normal speed and had to slam on the brakes to avoid running into a car stopped there.

Are we raising our kids to be such babies that they can’t stand at a bus stop? Surely it is against the HTA to stop there?

We would expect that at some point (incoming) Council will have this before them. So what suggestions do we have for them?

How will the downtown be best served by the traffic initiatives — including parking/no parking initiatives? What about safety concerns?

Who has the priority to the roads — pedestrians, vehicles, business owners (parking?). How do these issues impact traffic flow? Do we want it moving fast for convenience or slow for safety and shopping?

Lots of questions — and lots of answers.

We may not have all the answers, but when you have lots of ideas — you have a much better chance of coming up with a great idea.

Share your thoughts and let’s give Council some help 🙂

Posted in Discussion Topic, Traffic/Parking | 18 Comments »

Discussion Topic: Hydro Power

Posted by auroracitizen on November 20, 2010

There has been considerable discussion in one of  the posts about wind turbines and hydro needs. We have moved the comments across below, so we can continue the discussion focused around hydro issues

  • Luckywife said

    November 18, 2010 at 9:16 am eTo Tim The Enchanter:

    For sure, there will be plenty of debate, whether it will be reasoned, remains to be seen. As much as I try not to be cynical, I just can’t help myself. It has been so long since I have seen anything even resembling reason, that I have a difficult time believing that folks know what it is anymore. I have high hopes for our new council, not because I think they can do better, but because I don’t believe they could possibly do any worse than MorMac. For now, at least, I am cautiously optimistic.

    Saving the Moraine is a worthwhile initiative. Do we really know what we are saving it from? Dear Dalton has given lots of lip service to saving it, but again, the cynic in me can’t help assuming that it is only because the demographic of the surrounding area is middle to upper income. Lip service can buy alot of Liberal votes. A little to the east of us, people are in a huff about their Bluff. To the west, there is alot of chest thumping and digging in of heels to stop anymore development around the Escarpment. Dear Dalton pays lip service to that too. But, does anyone ever wonder where Dear Dalton is planning on erecting the $60 billion worth of wind turbines he’s purchased for us? That’s not dirty development. That’s green energy. We have only to erect them. The wind will come, Dalton says so. At the risk of pissing of David Suzuki and the eco-nuts that will come and bury the eggs of a million stink bugs in my yard, I’d rather have a 100 golf courses than gleaming hulks of twisted metal sparkling in the sunshine. If we can’t leave it alone and untouched, I’d rather see homes and people on it than a steel junkyard. But, again, that’s just me being cynical.

    Best regards,
    Luckywife

  • Anonymoose said

    November 18, 2010 at 2:17 pm eLuckywife, cynical is certainly not the word I would use to describe your perspective.

    You would really prefer to see farm land and forests paved over with houses and golf courses rather than a portion of the same space being occupied by wind turbines??? Huh??

    That is just such a totally bizarre perspective, I can’t even begin to get my head around it.

    Saving the Moraine is indeed a worthwhile initiative, but given your perspective, I can’t see how you would ever come to agree with this statement, let alone utter it yourself.

  • Luckywife said

    November 19, 2010 at 8:17 am eTo Anonymoose:

    “You would really prefer to see farm land and forests paved over with houses and golf courses rather than a portion of the same space being occupied by wind turbines??? Huh??”

    The answer is no more people, no more houses, no more golf courses, and no wind turbines. If I have to choose one over the other, then yes, I would prefer homes and people.

    Question: How many wind turbines would it take to supply the energy needs of 5000 homes?

    If you answered 0, because it is not possible, then you would be correct. Ergo, steel junkyard.

    Please don’t think that I am a NIMBY. Because if Dalton called me up tomorrow and said “Luckywife, I want you to have a wind turbine! I’m going to give you a grant to help you pay for it, a tax break, and $.80 for every kwh it generates!” You know what my response would be? I’d want to know if I took down my deck, my shed, my pool and my spruce tree, could I fit two?

    Best regards,
    Luckywife

  • Anonymoose said

    November 19, 2010 at 12:53 pm eLuckyWife,

    “Question: How many wind turbines would it take to supply the energy needs of 5000 homes?

    If you answered 0, because it is not possible, then you would be correct. Ergo, steel junkyard.”

    I’m afraid I do not understand this statement. Not possible?? Are you serious? Wind turbines can produce many megawatts of electricity. Currently in Ontario we have over 1000 MW of capacity which (assuming 30% efficiency at any instant in time) will easily run over 10000 homes. There is over another 2000MW currently under construction. To get the same power from coal would require burning about 3 million tonnes.

    You’re right it’s not NIMBYism. You just don’t understand anything about energy production or use.

  • Matt Maddocks said

    November 19, 2010 at 11:04 pm eAnonymoose – I don’t concur with your math, and I do understand a few things about energy;
    As of the end of 2009, total output of all Ontario active windfarm energy production was rated at approx 2.3 MW.
    According to the CEC, the average Canadian home consumes approx 2 kW annually.
    This output of wind-sourced energy would therefore heat and light approx 1150 homes.
    According to census, the total number of households in Ontario in 2009 was approx 3.9 million.
    1150 homes in 3.9 million represents approx. 0.3%.
    My point is that wind power, while cool, green, clean, and hip, in reality produces a mouses-fart worth of demanded energy in Ontario. And and I’ve always held the opinion to address the bigger issue of human consumption and demand, rather than the delivery system, I don’t currently place much stock in turbines, at least at this point in their development.
    Luckywife, keep the deck, shed, pool, and spuce. Way more fun in the summer than a couple of gawkly ol’ windmills anyway.

    How did we get on this anyway? Weren’t we talking about the recount?

  • Luckywife said

    November 20, 2010 at 2:07 am eTo Anonymoose:

    Actually, our current wind capacity is 1152MW, with another 491MW scheduled to come online in the next year. Where are the wind farms of the other 1500MW of the 2000MW you mentioned as being “currently under construction” being built? When will they come online?

    To assume “30% efficiency at any instant in time” is very generous and misleading. For instance, in April of 2009 we averaged a wind output of 41%, when we did not need it. In June of the same year, we averaged 14%, when we did need it. Wind power cannot be generated on demand. It cannot be stored for later use. Mother Nature is 100% in control of whether we have output – or not. Having 2000 turbines on a farm as opposed to 200 will certainly increase the MW output, but it won’t change the rate of efficiency. At best, it will only ever provide us with supplemental power. All that we can do is to try and forecast the wind, like we do weather conditions. That is no more of a guarentee than the weather forecast is.

    I think that I am quite justified to have reservations about our government preaching wind power as the holy grail of green energy. It is not selfish and shortsighted to worry over sky-rocketing hydro bills. Billions already spent, billions more in the future, all of it on credit. That’s an awful lot of eggs in one basket. I am not arguing that green energy is kind to our enviroment. It is. I am not convinced that in our climate, that wind or even solar is the best solution for us, given its costs and limitations.

  • Luckywife said

    November 20, 2010 at 2:21 am eSorry Matt, I’m the one that brought it up and took us off topic. Too much time on my hands this week, Luckyhusband is away on a business trip. I’m bored and lonesome and of course, kids, being teenagers, want nothing to do with me unless I am cooking them a meal or chauffering them around town.

    Note to self: Shut the hell up and go to bed!

    Regards,
    Luckywife

  • Anonymoose said

    November 20, 2010 at 7:58 am eLuckywife, don’t be sorry. This is a perfectly valid discussion for Aurorans to be having. Matt your numbers are the ones that are off kW are a measure of instantanious power. Your A/C uses close to 2KW at any moment in time. Over the course of a month an average household will use anything between 30-60 kWH. That is killowatt-hours.

    Luckywife, you’re right. I misread some other OPA documents. When doing some googling just now, I can across this which is a nice summary.

    http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/current-electricity-contracts/wind-power

    I never claimed that wind power is the holy grail, nor I think did OPA. As you say it is unpredictable and can never be counted on to supply more than about 10% . Especially without some quick responding peaker plants or better storage technology, to mitigate the variance of wind energy. That does not mean that wind energy should not be an integral part of a green solution, just as hydro already is, and solar should be. There is no reason for example that we should not have a grand windfarm 15KM off the shore of lake Ontario.

    Why is 30% misleading? 41% one month, 14% another. 30% over a year could be quite reasonable. Especially if you have multiple farms spread across the province.

  • Paul Sesto said

    November 20, 2010 at 8:09 am eTo add to the info from Luckywife, Matt Maddocks and Anonymoose, one of the problems with wind turbines is that they are either fully on (and variable with the power output) or off depending on the wind speed. If the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine there is no wind or solar (adding that into the discussion) energy. Yes, it adds to the grid but it is not consistent and reliable. So as more wind and solar are added so as to reduce coal burning plants, more peaker plants may also have to be added to provide the power on cloudy or windless days (the wind turbines also apparently freewheel if the wind is too strong). Hydro electric in Ontario may be the most reliable green energy but we have probably tapped “that stream” to the max. The answer to Ontario’s power needs is a whole new debate.

Posted in Discussion Topic, Hydro | 10 Comments »

Discussion Topic: Charitable Programs

Posted by auroracitizen on November 19, 2010

Should the Town provide space for charities to offer their programs? Many municipal governments provide food banks with rent-free space to operate, for example. Aurora doesn’t, but should the town do so?

Is it appropriate for groups to use Town facilities for charitable fund-raising? Should those groups pay the usual fee, a reduced fee, or should the Town provide space and staff provide free support to help support charitable endeavours?

What role should the town play in supporting charities financially? Should we waive fees or should they pay user fees like other groups?

What about making donations to charities?

Is anyone familiar with the current Town policy? Is there a policy? Let us know.

Posted in Charitable Programs, Discussion Topic | 52 Comments »

Thoughts for Consideration

Posted by auroracitizen on November 19, 2010

We’d like to start some new discussion threads on the Aurora Citizen focused on “What we want and what we believe?”

The premise is that there are some topics we should discuss as citizens of the Town of Aurora.  These are questions about how we want our town to grow and how we want our tax dollars spent.  How should the budget reflect what we want?

It’s one thing to say we want lower taxes, or value for our taxes, or even that we are willing to see our taxes increase if it benefits the community.

It’s another thing to say we want support for the most vulnerable in our society, or that we want wonderful infrastructure for community programming, or that we want to recognize our Aurora heritage.  We might want to support youth programs or seniors programs because they help families in our Town live better lives.  On the other hand, who pays?  How deep are the taxpayers’ pockets?

There are things we “want” and there are things we “believe”.  If we discuss them, we can find the things we know will benefit our community.  Then we can tell Council. We are hopeful the new Council will read this blog and consider the opinions expressed.

Let’s try an use this online channel to start a genuine debate and conversation.

So look for subject headings intended to start a discussion and join in.

Also, please send in suggestions of other topics you don’t see here.

Posted in Discussion Topic | 1 Comment »

Does Aurora Smell?

Posted by auroracitizen on November 19, 2010

Has anyone noticed that disgusting smell that’s been permeating throughout Aurora?

No, nothing to do with the residue left over from the municipal elections. This smell is real.

Whenever the wind blows up from the south side of town, that awful stink from the yard waste drop off site on Bloomington completely covers the town. It incredible how this has continued on and off again for a few years now.

Can’t something be done about this? I can’t possibly be the only one to find the smell nauseous.

Kevin in Aurora

Posted in Community Corner, Environment, Waste | 18 Comments »

A Failure of Leadership and Responsibility

Posted by auroracitizen on August 24, 2010

The following is reprinted from the Aug 18 edition, Volume 13 no 33, of NovæResUrbis – Greater Toronto Area Edition (www.nrupublishing.com this weekly magazine focuses on municipal politics and urban planning issues in Toronto and in the GTA).

Aurora appeals consolidated
In a prehearing decision issued August 12, board member Reid Rossi provided an update on an appeal by Aurora 2C West Landowners Group Inc. against failure of the Town of Aurora to approve an official plan amendment to establish a secondary plan for the Bayview Northeast Area 2C West lands, located on Concession 2, east of Yonge Street, bringing the lands into the designated future urban expansion area.

Rossi also provided an update on an appeal by Elhara Investments Limited and Aurora-Leslie Developments Limited (collectively known as Aurora-Leslie Developments Inc.) against the town’s failure to approve an official plan amendment for lands bounded by Leslie Street, Highway 404, Wellington Street and St. John’s Sideroad to permit development of a new community.

The board consolidated the appeal of Aurora-Leslie Developments Inc. with that of Aurora 2C West Landowners Group. The board set aside November 15 for a further prehearing conference, noting that at that time the town’s position would be known and the parties would be able to engage in more substantive discussions. A full hearing is expected to be scheduled for 2011.

So what’s an ordinary citizen to think?

How about Council has failed to do the job they were elected to do and look after the best interests of this community?

When the decision-making process is removed from their hands and turned over to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to make decisions on our behalf — then Council has failed in their elected duties.

The hoopla — just prior to the election — about things like the Promenade Study is just smoke and mirrors to divert our attention from the fact that they failed to deal with official plan amendments as required.

Posted in Election 2010, Environment, Growth, Leadership, Town Council | 35 Comments »

Why No Evening or Weekends Trains for GO Transit

Posted by auroracitizen on July 21, 2010

Thank  you for hosting this blog to allow residents to voice their opinions and concerns.

Here’s something I can’t figure out: why does the GO train run all day long from east to west but not north to south? And why no north-south weekend service?

The north-south trains are certainly full during commuter hours and the GO buses are often packed on weekends. As an Aurora resident who enjoys dining downtown, theatre and sightseeing, I would LOVE to have the same service as the people in Pickering or Burlington. I don’t get it. The tracks are there. The trains exist. The demand is likely there. But the service is not.

Personally, I would eagerly take advantage of a mid-day train to Barrie or downtown. I often take the GO bus downtown on Saturdays when I go to see shows or shopping. The bus, however, is NOT the train. The ride is uncomfortable — stuffy air, bumpy roads, sometimes stop-and-go traffic. I recently took the train from Toronto to Niagara and wow, what a difference. It was a lovely ride — and there were hardly any people on the train in the middle of a summer Saturday.

Think about this: Our Saturday GO buses are quite full and the Toronto-to-Niagara train is nearly empty. But the Toronto-Niagara Saturday riders have a wide-open schedule and we have only a few, crowded buses. We are constantly told that people should take transit rather than drive, but if the service is not convenient, how can we do so?

I would love to read what others have to say about this. How can we get all-day and weekend GO train service to take us north and south — downtown and to Barrie — the same way that the east-west service runs?

Or am I the only one who feels this way?

Marie

Posted in Community Corner, Community Input, Environment, Growth, Traffic/Parking, Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

What is the Downside of Not Fighting Westhill?

Posted by auroracitizen on July 21, 2010

Out of the chaff being spread between Mr. Poppe and other posters including yours truly, I did find one grain of wheat that might do with some clarification.

Guy Poppe responded to my earlier post regarding Westhill.

“If you think it is expensive to fight legal battles (brought by others) wait until you find out the cost of having to remedy water issues for neighboring properties.

The Town has a choice: ensure proper water and sewage resources from the developer or face further litigation for negligent approval.”

If I’m reading correctly, GP believes the Mayor’s ‘spend now-save later’ strategy is an example of far-sighted wisdom. ie; Aurora should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill a previously approved development because said development MAY damage the water and sewage works of neighbouring properties and IF that damage occurs Aurora MIGHT be on the hook for the costs of repairs and POSSIBLE litigation.

Since most of us seem to have the more cynical view that this is simply a case of blatant pandering to a special interest group perhaps our more informed readers/posters could enlighten us (at a See Spot Run level please) on the consequences of the worst case scenario.

If it all goes wrong as some fear is Aurora actually left holding the bag?

What about Westhill? the Region? the Province?

Tim the Enchanter

Posted in Community Corner, Community Input, Environment, Growth | 2 Comments »

Guest Post: Further Info on $500,000 Trail Addition Requested

Posted by auroracitizen on June 19, 2010

I do a lot of hiking on a weekly basis in town & in Newmarket and thoroughly enjoy Sheppard’s Bush and the Nokiidaa Trail north of Green Lane in Newmarket.

I just read the article at yorkregion.com, Trail link project set to start this winter ( http://www.yorkregion.com/news/article/835366–trail-link-project-set-to-start-this-winter )

At the General Committee meeting Aurora Council  approved going ahead with linking the Nokiidaa trail in Aurora to Newmarket section, but would still need final approval. I have followed bits & pieces of this topic from various sources but don’t have the whole picture. I do see that this does not include the “other planned enhancements, such as turtle ponds and snake hibernacula” and the project is going to cost $500,000 (1/2 million) and that’s without the already spent consultant’s fees, etc.

Fair enough, you don’t get anything for free and I’m all for trails since I am a user, but I on these trails, weekday evenings, mornings and weekend mornings and I don’t see heavy use. You pass by a few hikers, runners, a couple of families sometimes.

Yes, trails are great, but here’s the kicker $500,000 and its less than ½ kilometer of trail. Less than 500 metres ( 283 metres of trail and 185 metres of board walk – so it’s an average of $1,000 per metre.

There’s already a great boardwalk already there on St. John’s Sideroad, why is another boardwalk needed at that cost? I hope they plan on putting parking in somewhere there because I have always seen that area to hike as a problem since you have to park down on Industrial Drive at the dog park or further south at the Leisure complex.

Anyone have a quick summary as to what they are getting at $1,000/metre?

Posted in Community Corner, Community Input, Environment, Guest Post, Recreation | 5 Comments »

Mayor Morris Continues to Spend Good Money After Bad — With No Real Hope of Success

Posted by auroracitizen on May 20, 2010

One has to wonder about the fiscal responsibility being shown by continuing to invest in this losing battle.
  
Council must work within the guidelines set out by the Official Plan. Every land owner or developer has the right to expect that Town Council will abide by the rules of law versus make up their own. When they don’t —  they have the legal remedy to appeal to the OMB. “In February, a divisional court dismissed the argument put forth by the town and residents…”
  
Making up her own rules may work for Mayor Phyllis Morris when she has the votes of 5 Councillors in her pocket, but when she steps outside these boundaries into the real world — one governed by rules not of her own making — we have seen how successful she has been thus far. Not very.
 
This is just one more example of her complete lack of real leadership experience.
  
Will Council provide a financial accounting for the legal and staff costs to fight this development rather than working to get Aurora the best deal possible? We doubt it. It would prove too costly for the incumbents re-election dreams.
 
Surely she wouldn’t have us believe that releasing the price being spent would be considered “exposing their legal strategy”? The amount spent on legal and the actual strategy are two different conversations.
 
The only strategy it might expose is their complete lack of fiscal accountability when it involves spending our money on pet projects — with no gain to the citizens of Aurora as a whole.
 
Perhaps Mayor Phyllis Morris is counting on people forgetting the waste of our tax dollars on the unwarranted legal bills when the election comes this October. We doubt that too!
  
 
By Sean Pearce, May 14, 2010 – 4:00 PM
 
Aurora hires experts for Westhill battle
 
In its ongoing efforts to halt the Westhill development, Aurora is enlisting the aid of a trio of experts.
 
The town opposes Lebovic Enterprises’ planned Westhill development, which would see 75 homes and an 18-hole golf course built on a slice of the Oak Ridges Moraine near Leslie Street and Bloomington Road.
  
Last week, the town retained a hydrogeologist, geoscientist and planner to bolster its case. However, because the decision to do so was made in closed session, town spokesperson Jason Ballantyne said he couldn’t disclose the reason behind the move or how much it will cost taxpayers.
 
Frustrated, Councillor Alison Collins-Mrakas said she could say very little on the matter except that council voted in favour of hiring the experts. All the other information is protected by closed session confidentiality, she said.
  
“I hope, in the very near future, we can speak about this issue,” she said. “I think the public deserves to know why council made the decision it did.”
 
Aurora council denied the developer’s application in 2008 and the company appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board soon after.
 
The case has gone back and forth between the OMB and divisional court ever since as the town and nearby residents, fearful for their well water, sought a joint board hearing to have a plethora of environmental concerns addressed.
 
In February, a divisional court dismissed the argument put forth by the town and residents stating the joint board would be the only way to address the many environmental concerns.
 
The town sought leave to appeal in March.
 
Mayor Phyllis Morris said she, too, was limited in what she could say.
 
She couldn’t release the details on price, she said, but noted the three experts are well-regarded and have been retained to give their opinions in the Westhill case as it moves forward, be it back to the OMB or if the town is successful in its push to obtain a joint board hearing.
 
“I certainly don’t want to expose our legal strategy,” Mrs. Morris said. “At some point, we’d like to release the opinion of our solicitor on this matter, but that would have to be a council resolution.”

Posted in Environment, Growth, Legal | 32 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »