Authored by: Paved Over on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 03:11 PM EST

The battle is over, possibly. Maybe. Perhaps. Who knows.

Unless London "pulls a Horton" and instead goes for the "quash" option suggested in a London Free Press letter today by A. Sancton.

He recommends as a better solution "a one-sentence law declaring the OMB decision on London to be null and void."

Myself, I have penned correspondence to my MPP expressing concern that the City's quest to the Province not end up becoming by unanticipated coincidence and happenstance a Horton-street-extension-style end-run around its stymied OMB recalcitrance.

I recall that in the seventies London's love aaffair with developers was kicked off by the Horton St Extension project, which only got the go ahead via fiat, obtained from Queen's Park, I recollect as an Order-in-Council or some such bash to the head of democracy. London had been stymied by hearings and other processes that had denied the City the right to "do Horton".

When it hit a brick wall of law, London did a Queen's Park end-run. It remains to be seen whether the same or similar will happen on the ward issue. I am sure COuncil believes it is acting in good faith, but a lot else can happen now as the process is out in a kind of cloistered never-never-land wherein we cannot read the Province-City interaction until the end result plops out upon us all.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 05:41 PM EST

Paved Over, let's be clear on something here -- and by the way, Mr. Sancton's letter is a joke, riddled with errors and misunderstandings (rather surprising for a so-called "municipal governance expert").

1. Justice McDermid's hearing was held in Superior Court, not Divisional Court, as stated by Mr. Sancton. The City of London sought "leave to appeal" the OMB decision to Divisional Court, but the hearing was held in Superior Court.

2. Where does Justice McDermid determine that London's council is enlarged to 33 members by the OMB decision? That's right, he doesn't say that. He says that, not only is the OMB decision/ order a de facto by-law, but that city council can pass a by-law setting the number of councillors per ward at one.

3. Mr. Sancton suggests that the Provincial Legislature should "quash" the OMB decision. The Provincial Legislature cannot simply quash an OMB decision that has been upheld by Superior Court. The Province can appeal the Superior Court decision (denying leave to appeal and upholding the OMB decision) via the courts, but it cannot unilaterally quash it.

4. Paved Over, I question the weight and significance you attach to the buidling of the Horton Street extension. I, personally, don't remember all the details related to its approval, but I'd be interested in more reasoning why you think it was such a milestone event.

Authored by: Gaile McGregor on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 06:06 PM EST

I agree wholeheartedly with the previous poster that Sancton's letter is a joke and the Province can't legally do what he is calling on them to do. To my mind, however, the misrepresentation goes even beyond what Yellowcake claims. Justice McDermid didn't just say that Council had the power to pass a by-law setting the number of councillors per ward at one -- he said quite explicitly that if Council doesn't do anything at all, the number remains as is: "What has changed is not the composition of council but the number of wards which councillors will be elected to represent."

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 06:59 PM EST

I dunno 'bout da rest of da brain surgeons on altlondon, but I tink dat Andy Sancton and Steve Orser are da sharpest knives in da drawer.

---
I put da pepper on da plate! Da Mad Cow no make da Brain go Spongey!

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 08:13 PM EST

Letter to the Editor
The London Free Press

Typical of the misinformation surrounding London's ward dispute is Andrew Sancton's letter, Best solution in ward mess is to quash it (Mar. 10). Sancton makes three errors of fact in his letter.

1. Sancton refers to "the ruling of the Ontario Divisional Court concerning London's appeal of the OMB ward decision ..." when Justice McDermid's refusal to grant the City of London leave to appeal the OMB decision was heard in Superior Court, not Divisional Court. If leave had been granted, the appeal would have been heard in Divisional Court.

2. Sancton says that as a result of McDermid's ruling, "London is legally required to elect a 33-member city council in November." Sancton's misinterpretation of McDermid's 17-page decision makes me wonder whether or not he's actually read the decision, as McDermid suggests just the opposite: that the size of London's council remains fixed at 19 members and that council could simply pass a by-law formalizing one councillor in each of the 14 new wards.

3. Sancton says, "A better idea would be to ask the [provincial] legislature to enact a one-sentence law declaring the OMB decision on London wards to be null and void," when the legislature has no authority to unilaterally quash an OMB decision that has been upheld by the courts.

Weapons-grade plutonium

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 08:22 PM EST

I can't understand what all the fuss is about with these damn wards. I just want somewhere to go where I can get a decent cup of coffee for a buck and an ice-cold glass of draft beer for a buck-fifty.

Authored by: Paved Over on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 08:30 PM EST

Someone opined" "Paved Over, I question the weight and significance you attach to the building of the Horton Street extension."

The extension is significant because it was the first of London's ill-advised mega projects, not coincidentally getting its support electorally from the suburbanites favored by the "oddly shaped" wards we presently have.

The question is whether the Province can simply quash the OMB ward outcome at all. Well, the City of London approached the Davis government of the day (I think it was William Grenville Davis) and arranged for an Order-in-Council to over-rule environmental assessment results and so forth that blocked the Horton Street Extension and would have prevented it from ever being done.

It seems to me that an Order-In-Council might do here as well, but that is a question for lawyers I would think.

I do not see that Sancton's proposal is a joke, but it may be more rhetorical than a deliberate suggestion as to the rightful end result. Still, it raises a legitimate alarm in the proper historical context just outlined.

I think it is smart for anyone who supported the ward redraw to understand that it succeeded as a proposal only because it made sense in the context of London's over-bearing emphasis on over-building and over-construction of infrastructure to serve suburban interests--the peripheral populace being that which holds the main political influence in the City of London. It is that trend that provided the implicit proof in the pudding.

Horton is thus highly significant for two reasons. The first is that it was the FIRST of the megaprojects which identify the developer-centric London generated by the faulty ward structure; and secondly it is a potential precedent for deep-sixxing the ward redraw just as the Horton process deep-sixxed the legal blocks on the Horton extension.

People who follow London's urban history closely without a passion for over-focussed pet issues will note the eerie similarity of process here.

Authored by: Timberlake on Friday, March 10 2006 @ 10:30 PM EST

Paved Over, you have made a valuable analogy. I don’t remember the specific process that took place regarding the extension. I was in the bliss of ignorance relating to local politics in those days. I do remember a very interesting natural area on the edge of downtown that was bulldozed into the freeway to nowhere. Then the coal tar left behind from the old gas plant on Horton St. started oozing out and into the Thames river after that. That is why we have environmental assessments, isn’t it?

We can go further back to the provisions of the will of Elsie Perrin Williams. Her will was broken when the City engineered another trip to the Legislature. It is a bitter irony since the building could eventually have been used as a historical museum, as she intended, but the City offered it at fire sale prices to an assertive downtown developer instead.

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 11 2006 @ 02:18 PM EST

To suggest that the Horton Street Extension was the first of the city's mega-projects is simply not true and constitutes an absurd attempt to rewrite history.

I take it that you belive the history of London, Ontario, began in the 1970s and 1980s.

Regarding the legislature's ability to unilaterally set aside a decision of the judiciary, it is simply not possible. In Cuba, however, it may be.

Note that the OMB decision has been upheld by Ontario's Superior Court of Justice in an application for leave to appeal to Divisional Court. The Province can appeal the decision of the Superior Court (within the appeal timelines), but it cannot set it aside.

William Grenville Davis, eh, I'll try and remember that.

Authored by: Paved Over on Saturday, March 11 2006 @ 05:06 PM EST

YC objected that "...To suggest that the Horton Street Extension was the first of the city's mega-projects is simply not true and constitutes an absurd attempt to rewrite history."

I did not say what you claim I said, YC. What I said was qualified. I said that Horton "... was the FIRST of the megaprojects WHICH IDENTIFY THE DEVELOPER-CENTRIC LONDON GENERATED BY THE FAULTY WARD STRUCTURE."

That reads rather differently from what your quote of me suggested, YC.

I would not assume that London's ward fight is over until we do have 14 wards and one councillor per ward. This is London, [a.k.a/ the deep south backwoods of] Ontario; let's remember that.

Like I saud, a lot can happen between the time the City approaches the Province of Ontario and the parlay with same finishes up. If we have a wise goverment in Toronto we will get what we need ward-wise.

If not, duck & cover, cause it won't be pretty.

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 11 2006 @ 05:40 PM EST

There's been scores of mega-projects in London prior to the Horton Street extesnion, with the pie-shaped wards in place.

The Province has the right to appeal Justice McDermid's decision within the given timelines for appeal. To unilaterally quash the OMB decision would constitute an abuse of process, be contemptful of both Justice McDermid and Superior Court generally and could bring the entire system of justice in Ontario into disrepute.

Such an action by the legislature would trigger litigation on several front. Trust me, it's not going to happen. Namely, the appeal or the illegal attempt to quash the OMB decision.

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 11 2006 @ 07:09 PM EST

What you fail to appreciate or realize Yellow Cake is that London, Ontario, Canada, is located smack-dab in the middle of the dreaded Great Lakes Triangle, where the unexpected, the unusal and the obtuse are the norm.

Be more respectful of "Paved Over" as he knew Premier Davis's middle name. Premier Davis isn't dead yet, but the skin on his revered face is stretched pretty thin.

Paved Over has a wonderful bumpy forehead of scar tisuue that we kLINGONS find so attractive.

---
The kLINGON nATION is covertly running the show down at city hall.

Authored by: Greg Fowler on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 09:36 AM EST

Imagine London may think that the battle is over, but somebody apparently forgot to tell local politicians.

During this morning's CJBK "News, Talk, Today" broadcast, Councillor Cheryl Miller quiped that the city has spent more money sending bylaw enforcement officers to 567 Queens Ave. than what it has spent on legal fees.

Does that mean that the city's legal staff has finally revealed how much it cost local taxpayers to contest the OMB ruling? to fight other fights?

Authored by: Editor on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:15 PM EST

Are you serious? Miller is saying the city has spent in excess of $100,000 on a single rooming house and with no results to show for it? Did the hosts challenge her on that? How do you spend $100,000 and have nothing ... nevermind, we are talking Miller, Caranci, Gosnell, et al ...

Authored by: Editor on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 12:19 PM EST

In today's Free Press:

"But Coun. Cheryl Miller hopes the law can be used. "I don't want to hear the reasons why we can't do it," she said."

That would explain a lot, wouldn't it? She is averse to reason.

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 14 2006 @ 04:43 PM EST

The money spent on the rooming house on Queens has involved bylaw enforcement, police involvement and legal fees. The legal fees for the Imagine London petition are completely separate.

The City of London regularly spends more than $850,000 a year on legal fees. Speaking of Imagine London, now that this ward battle is all but over with nothing left but the crying for Gosnell, Monteith, Van Liederhosen and company, will the group split up or be resurrected as an a cappella group?

---
"I'll drive a Mack Truck up somebody's ass if I have to!"