I normally try not to do enraged posts, but every once in a while an issue comes up.  The town identified upgrade of Nassagaweya Tennis Club as one of the high priority shovel-ready project and applied for stimulus funding. It got it.  Federal and Provincial governments will contribute just under $2 million while the town will chip in with another $1 million. 

Sounds good, right?  Wrong!  Here’s why :-

1. 1. The club is not getting any additional tennis courts. Its members will have same number of courts.  Huh?  $3 million and not even an additional court!  As far as maintaining exist courts go, the town already pays half the cost of resurfacing tennis courts.
2. Nassagaweya Tennis Club has less than 200 members (not a typo).  Why is the town spending $15,000 / member (total $3 million) when the money is so badly needed elsewhere?  If the town is so flushed with money then why does it not just give some of it back to the tax-payers?
3. The money will go towards the demolition and replacement of a building on site.  Will the town still collect $100 in rent for the entire year, or will the rent reflect the true cost? 
4. The money will also re-align the three tennis courts from east-west to face north-south to reduce sunlight glare issues.  Sweet!  The hospital is a disaster, roads are gridlocked but hey … those less than 200 people should not have to put up with sunlight glare when paying tennis.  On top of this the town also shares operating costs, including paying all electric bills and clubhouse interior upgrades and half the cost to resurface tennis courts.
5. The club’s president, Jim Harding, said anyone within the town of Milton is welcome to become a resident.  Oh gee, thanks.  I think people already voted with their wallets when less than 200 decided to become members.  Why don’t they join other tennis facilities in the town or pay more so their tennis doesn’t have to be subsidized by others?
6. Rural residents pay a lower property tax-rates than urban residents do (many Miltonians don’t know this fact).  This is because rural residents do not want to pay for services that only urban residents receive.  So I ask, is this money raised only from Nassagaweya residents?  If not then why not just have the same tax-rate for all of Milton? 

If the money had to be spent on tennis then the town could have built courts where a large number of tax-payers could benefit from them.  When you live in a high-population-density-area-where-you-can-high-five-your-neighbour-without-either-of-you-leaving-your-homes then you trade open spaces for access to more facilities (because the cost gets divided among a larger tax-base).  Similarly, people who live in rural areas opt for open spaces and all the goodness of country life that us urbanites miss out on.  However, they do have to travel to use facilities because the population density in rural areas often does not justify the expenditure.  It is completely absurd for several dozen people to expect this sort of subsidy from the town and it is equally absurt for the town to provide it. 

Moreover, it’s okay for the town to subsidize a library or a public park because a business case does not exist for a profitable library or public park (not a reasonbale one at least). However, there are plenty of profitable sports clubs.  As such, the town should only build sports facilities if it expects to run them at a no-loss situation.  If members using a facility cannot even pay for the on-going cost then it’s a good indicator that running such a facility does not make economic sense. A better use of money is to stop throwing money after such activities. 

The part of Milton I live in has more than 10,000 residents and we do not have a single neighbourhood park (we do have two dirt fields that will get developed into a park at some point in the future).  There are a number of badly needed road projects in Milton that the town is responsible for.  The money could have gone there.

Heck there is the often mentioned Hospital that could use some money.  If nothing else then the town could build the hospital a parking lot so people wouldn’t have to fork out close to $10 for parking on top of spending 5 hours in the waiting room.

In this economy I am sure Miltonians wouldn’t mind getting a rebate cheque from the town if it could not find a better use for money.

But in the worst recession in living memory the town found it necessary to spend this much needed money to subsidize tennis for such a small number of residents!  I counted and there are more than 200 people on my street.  Should we get a private tennis club of our own too?

If you agree with me that this is a waste of tax-payer money then please join me and leaving a note to your councillor.  Follow this link and ask the town clerk to forward the message to the  entire Council.  You may also call or email them directly, which is always better.  Their phone numbers and e-mail addresses are here.

I have blogged about Milton losing its charm because of seemingly unplanned expansion.  A big part of that is out-of-character buildings popping up where they do not belong.  I sent this letter to the town about that.  Lets see what they say:

Dear Mayor and Councillors:

I am a new Miltonian, writing to express my concern about Milton bylaws allowing the construction of taller buildings in the town.  I am also troubled to learn that Milton currently has over a dozen 4-8 floor tall condominium apartments under planning application and construction all over the town.

I moved to Milton after spending a few years outside Canada.  I moved to Canada to work from home and as such, I could choose to live anywhere.  After researching different areas I picked Milton mostly because of its small-town character.  I am afraid that the seemingly unplanned sprawl of taller buildings is quickly destroying that character. One only has to drive through Mississauga or Brampton to see what taller buildings in otherwise low-rise neighbourhoods do to the make-up of the neighbourhood. 

I have lived in several cities that handle high population density gracefully without impacting their appeal.  Several cities in the State of Washington (Redmond, Bellevue, Issaquah) took different approaches that all define their characters well. Redmond does not allow any building taller than 3 stories whereas Bellevue concentrated tall buildings in a very walk-able downtown core with very wide walkways.  Issaquah designed an ‘Urban Village’ that maintains high density using smaller lots but shared neighbourhood spaces.  However, what is common in each case is that these cities planned their character up front and then implemented their vision well. 

I would like the town to immediately pass a bylaw restricting building heights to only 4 stories high.  Thereafter, the town should conduct proper planning to determine where taller buildings should go.  These buildings should be concentrated in a small urban core and placed in a way that is not only environmentally friendly, but is also aesthetically pleasing.  An online poll at http://tinyurl.com/rx48a7 confirmed that more than 80% of residents agree with my sentiments.  I feel that the town has a good financial incentive in enhancing its charm. A more appealing town will attract more future residents which is good for property values in the area and therefore, good for the town’s tax-base.  It may also attract more out-of-town visitors to Milton, providing a boost to businesses in the town.

I would like to see the town transform itself into a community that people pay a premium to move to, rather than a sprawl people pick temporarily because they cannot afford any other place in the GTA.  Milton is at the verge of transformation due to the explosive growth.  We can handle it gracefully, turning Milton into a vibrant city that further enhances its current charm or we can let builders call all shots, essentially making Milton indistinguishable from other communities in the GTA region. 

I hope we choose the former as the latter would be an irreversible mistake that would destroy the town’s character forever. I am looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Zeeshan Hamid

Thankfully, it’s not too late yet. Milton can maintain its charm and further enhance it.  But we are at the verge.  If we do not get a grip soon then I am afraid it will be too late! 

A little while ago Ontario Municipal Board approved a development that some councillors at the city of Toronto did not like. What did they do? Willowdale Councillor John Filion suggested renaming the street the development was on to OMB Folly. Not surprisingly, some people who forked out $1 million to buy town homes on that street are upset at the name (original name was supposed to be Connfield Lane).

What does Filion have to say about people protesting the new name? Surprisingly (to me at least), he said he won’t support a switch. Instead, he insists that "neighbours are all completely in favour of OMB Folly."

The country is going through some real economic crises. Province of Ontario is seeing worse suffering. City of Toronto is an even worse shape. And what do these childish councillors do? Waste time on ridiculous names just to offend. Shame!  Don’t get me wrong, I do not have much respect for OMB, but this isn’t the right channel to show grievances. 

Halton Region is proposing a bylaw prohibiting smoking within nine metres of the entries and exits of most municipal buildings.

My first thought was "awesome." However, upon further thinking (over an hour actually), I am not sure if I like the suggestion.

Let me explain.

I hate the smell of second-hand smoke. I could never be a smoker because then I wouldn’t be able to stand myself. This is why I supported the indoor smoking ban, although I think it wouldn’t be out of line to give some room for exceptions. This current bylaw, however, may be going too far.

I am noticing this trend where we feel justified in taking civil liberties away from people in minority. In this case it’s smokers. But that doesn’t change a thing.

Banning smoking indoors has good health reasons. Second-hand smoke kills. That ban has public safety justification. This proposed ban does not meet that bar. It is only there because us non-smokers are inconvenienced by the smell as we enter or exit a building. We think it’s too much to put up with a habit – albeit an annoying even – of fellow citizens even for the few seconds it takes to pass by them.

I think it’s going too far. Don’t let people smoke indoors. But as long as cigarettes are legal, let them decide where to smoke them outdoors.