Tue, June 12, 2007
By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA
In a prelude to a fight over how London grows and who pays for it, council members yesterday accused one another of hitting below the belt.
"Despite all that we hear about the code of conduct and bullying, it seems it's alive and well," Coun. Joni Baechler said in council chambers.
Baechler has pushed council to more closely manage how the city grows, as have three others on the planning committee, all of whom have last names beginning with the letter B -- Controller Gina Barber and Councillors Judy Bryant and Nancy Branscombe.
Detractors sometimes refer to them as the Killer Bs, a label that appeared in a Free Press article on Saturday.
Wearing a bee pin on her blouse, Baechler buzzed back at yesterday's planning committee meeting.
"I don't say there are members of council who are so far in developers' pockets they're spitting lint," she said.
Coun. Susan Eagle, also a proponent of more managed growth, took aim at Controller Gord Hume and Coun. Roger Caranci.
Both Hume and Caranci say they want growth to keep housing prices affordable, but both also opposed extra city money to support affordable housing during budget deliberations, Eagle said.
"I find that a little difficult to swallow," Eagle said.
The same could be said of the reaction of those on the other side of the debate, council members who are less concerned about managing growth and more concerned about it being stifling.
"I stick by my comments in the paper," Caranci said.
As for the term "Killer Bs", Caranci said, "I have heard it in the community, but I have never said it."
A number of councillors accused Eagle of playing word games by muddying the difference between what they want -- keeping housing affordable for workers -- and what she wants: Creating subsidized housing for those with little or no income.
"Not everyone wants to go and have the government hand them a home," Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen said. "(Some) want to work for it."
Though Branscombe is clearly on one side of the debate, she implored others to be civil.
"I beseech councillors to be careful with the name-calling. I don't thinks it furthers the debate," she said.
There's no doubt council will change the way it has allowed the city to grow after a blue ribbon panel, chosen with the agreement of developers, suggested changes.
But the question is how much -- and the answer could affect everything from property taxes to jobs.
Those pushing for the most change want council to take firm control over the reins of growth, targeting sections of the city a few at a time and being mindful that the public purse is limited -- the city has imposed an annual $30-million debt cap after past councils spent well beyond the city's means.
On the other side are those who believe council should, to a large extent, let developers and the private sector call the shots. To do otherwise, they say, risks an economic slowdown and job losses.
The debate on growth resumes tonight.
Tue, June 12, 2007
By JONATHAN SHER, SUN MEDIA
In a prelude to a fight over how London grows and who pays for it, council members yesterday accused one another of hitting below the belt.
"Despite all that we hear about the code of conduct and bullying, it seems it's alive and well," Coun. Joni Baechler said in council chambers.
Baechler has pushed council to more closely manage how the city grows, as have three others on the planning committee, all of whom have last names beginning with the letter B -- Controller Gina Barber and Councillors Judy Bryant and Nancy Branscombe.
Detractors sometimes refer to them as the Killer Bs, a label that appeared in a Free Press article on Saturday.
Wearing a bee pin on her blouse, Baechler buzzed back at yesterday's planning committee meeting.
"I don't say there are members of council who are so far in developers' pockets they're spitting lint," she said.
Coun. Susan Eagle, also a proponent of more managed growth, took aim at Controller Gord Hume and Coun. Roger Caranci.
Both Hume and Caranci say they want growth to keep housing prices affordable, but both also opposed extra city money to support affordable housing during budget deliberations, Eagle said.
"I find that a little difficult to swallow," Eagle said.
The same could be said of the reaction of those on the other side of the debate, council members who are less concerned about managing growth and more concerned about it being stifling.
"I stick by my comments in the paper," Caranci said.
As for the term "Killer Bs", Caranci said, "I have heard it in the community, but I have never said it."
A number of councillors accused Eagle of playing word games by muddying the difference between what they want -- keeping housing affordable for workers -- and what she wants: Creating subsidized housing for those with little or no income.
"Not everyone wants to go and have the government hand them a home," Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen said. "(Some) want to work for it."
Though Branscombe is clearly on one side of the debate, she implored others to be civil.
"I beseech councillors to be careful with the name-calling. I don't thinks it furthers the debate," she said.
There's no doubt council will change the way it has allowed the city to grow after a blue ribbon panel, chosen with the agreement of developers, suggested changes.
But the question is how much -- and the answer could affect everything from property taxes to jobs.
Those pushing for the most change want council to take firm control over the reins of growth, targeting sections of the city a few at a time and being mindful that the public purse is limited -- the city has imposed an annual $30-million debt cap after past councils spent well beyond the city's means.
On the other side are those who believe council should, to a large extent, let developers and the private sector call the shots. To do otherwise, they say, risks an economic slowdown and job losses.
The debate on growth resumes tonight.
Prev
Time for Action on Infill
Linear Mode
