City Council Meeting September 23, 2014
Jason here. Last night’s meeting was a short one – no time consuming, but necessary ‘recommend’ from the C.A.O. but, once again Jason is struck by the importance attached to a presentation at City Council. This is Council at its best. In this case it was a presentation on behalf of St. John Ambulance to Kaitlyn Woodman, Duncan Pyke and Tony Hamilton for their role in saving the life of Gus Brown. Everyone was there, the Chamber was full. Pictures were taken. The presentations were made and then everyone left. I guess the other reports, on Poverty Reduction and Immigration were not as interesting.
Council will miss Councillor Glover. One wonders – as he leaves for Winnipeg -if he could have had more influence if he had the ability to change the mind of just one west end Councillor- this is most true on the issue of apartments in Cellars. Council is determined to intensify and this is supported by the Official Plan. Council will accept almost anything that ‘intensifies’. Thus intensification is seen as a left/right issue with Councillors who are noted ‘left wingers’ resisting intensification and those on the ‘right’ pushing it. One wonders what will become of our city if all matters are viewed through this lens. A continual vote split 7/6. Good planning principals are being lost. The mayor dislikes Councillor Glover – probably for his (Glover’s) insistence on the use of the NATO phonetic alphabet. Jason wonders if the replacement for Glover, be it any one of the three running in |Sydenham Ward, will be different. Certainly less arrogant and that as well as the alphabet turns the mayor and others off. Is this issue – intensification- just a matter of personal likes and dislikes? Let us give Councillors credit – they probably vote their constituents interest and most people want an intensified inner city, including apartments in cellars.
Most interesting was the motion, at the end of the meeting under New Motions by Councillors Berg and Paterson asking staff to assess the functioning of non-statutory advisory committees. Many saw this as a threat to current committees of which there are many- Arts Advisory, Museums, Memorial Centre, Age, Accessibility etc. It is alleged that the nomination process is broken. If committees need expertise then the nomination process should recognise this. This is a seminal issue. Do advisory committees fill a roll or should they be abandoned and let the staff do the work? Are advisory committees in the way of staff? Is a six year term realistic if committees need expertise? The motion was split into two. No one had an objection to staff looking at the committees. Current members will stay until replaced.
KingstonElectors 