Taxes in Oshawa are too high

Reprinted from Letters to Editor, Oshawa This Week, July 2



To the editor:

When are the people of Oshawa going to stand up against the council and fight the taxes in Oshawa?

I live in a 1100 sq. ft. home in north Oshawa and my taxes are $4,062 per year.

This is outrageous.

I tried to sell my home last year and every comment on why I couldn't sell was the amount of my taxes.

My taxes are soon going to be more than my mortgage payment.

Sandy Matthews

Oshawa

Editor's Comment---Perhaps one of the reasons why city council introduced the General Vote which guarantees their re-election is to protect their jobs even in the face the huge public debts they've generated and their generally incompetent management of city business.

City doesn't have track record to manage harbour

Reprinted from July 2, 2009 Oshawa This Week
Guest Columnist Adam Mercer



Few people in the City of Oshawa would deny that the harbour should be well-managed by an agency with the money and clout to do a good job for the people footing the bill; the taxpayers of Oshawa.

In a recent opinion column, Councillor Brian Nicholson essentially posed the question, "Why will the federal government not honour the recommendations of David Crombie and let the City of Oshawa manage the harbour or appoint a body to do so?"

Seriously? Does council as a whole not understand this? Staying informed about events in the city over the last year or two should provide the answer to that question with little difficulty, but in case anyone has forgotten ...

The City of Oshawa has a habit of making business decisions that don't make much sense to an outside observer. The Cullen Miniatures are still out there being stored at the expense of the City of Oshawa. There was never a plan worked out as to what to do with these things once the city owned them. If they cannot plan something like a $250,000 investment, why should they be handed millions in federal cash to do whatever they want?

Taxpayers are also on the hook for something between $14 and $17 million for the cost of rebuilding City Hall. Oh, and there are all the other building projects that have happened in the city that were such a great idea we have had to remortgage the only asset the City has that makes money, our local PUC.

If that were not enough to discourage anyone from allowing the City to take over the management of the harbour, the recent discord among members of council itself might be the straw that broke the camel's back. Between accusations made regarding hidden agendas, letters being hidden from public view, the now infamous "stooges" comment and the massive mishandling of the Ombudsman's report on some of the activities of council, it is hard not to see why there are questions about Council's ability to function on any major question. (Editor's Comment---Don't forget that Council actually voted to refuse voters information about the rationale, impact and ramifications of the change to the General Vote---a system not used in any large city in the country. If the general vote was better, don't you think it would be used widely?)

That's especially valid when it concerns an issue as economically and environmentally sensitive as the harbour.

From the Federal Government's perspective, it is looking to hire the caretaker of an important public asset in the Oshawa Harbour. Our council is confused because it is not even on the short list despite making poor business decisions, mortgaging the City's assets to spend more than it has and it seems incapable of unifying long enough for a photo-op.

If we have to look for positive and important accomplishments, there is always the massive PR effort to bring Kiss to Oshawa.

If you were hiring for an important position in your own company and someone dropped off a resume with highlights like that, would you even interview them?

Welcome Back From Your Taxpayer-funded HolidayCouncillors

While Oshawa is suffering record unemployment and job losses, extended GM summer closings and the potential shuttering of GM, the highest taxes in the GTA, and a train wreck, many of our councillors have been holidaying at our expense in Whistler, British Columbia.

They were there to attend the June 4-8 National Conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). Of course they would have flown out a few days earlier and stayed a few days after to provide a decent holiday of sightseeing beyond what was provided by the conference. They would want to make the most of it as the holiday and expensive accommodation and transportation was paid for by Oshawa taxpayers who scraped together the tax dollars out of their empty pockets to pick up the politician's holiday tab.

While in Whistler, our councilors no doubt took advantage of every learning opportunity provided by the conference.

To be really valuable at this conference, our councilors should have organized a seminar showing their fellow municipal politicians across the country how to ram the general vote into their citizen’s throats as our city politicians did to guarantee their re-election and future attendance at many of these taxpayer paid FCM holiday junkets across the country. They could have counselled their fellow municipal politicians to design an incomprehensive plebiscite question designed to solicit the desired answer from unsuspecting voters and then keep the question secret to catch voters cold in the voting booth and refuse to provide voters information about the question so they could understand what they were voting for. They could have counselled politicians from across the country the strategy of how to introduce Oshawa’s new voting system that is not used in any large jurisdiction in the country. It goes without saying, of course, that the Oshawa’s system is not used because it is undemocratic, unrepresentative, and unaccountable, produces an unproductive council utilizing an incomprensible ballot with upwards of the names of 75-80 candidates for city-wide elections.

Instead of this valuable service, no doubt our politicians took advantage to take “study tours” featured on the conference program to the Olympic Sport Venues including the Whistler Sliding Centre which will host the bobsled, luge, and skeleton events, the Whistler Olympic/Paralympic Park which will host the biathlon, cross country and ski jumping events, Whistler Creekside which will host the downhill skiing events, the athletes village, a slideshow/video presentation about a 430-day Antarctic scientific mission (not an Arctic Mission which would have at least been relevant to Canadians), and enjoyed a gondola or quad chair ride to the top of Whistler or Blackcomb mountain to enjoy a casual evening buffet of west coast cuisine and local entertainment (to insure our city politicians didn’t get bored, they were also able to traverse back and forth between the mountains in just 11 minutes on the new Peak 2 Gondola to enjoy the breathtaking views from both mountains),

Additional tours with extra costs were organized to Ancient Cedars Hike ($135), a driving and hiking tour to explore some local waterfalls ($135), a Squamish First Nations Cultural Centre Tour ($23), a Zipline eco-tour ($145), a tree-trek canopy tour ($50), a Whistler Village walking tour ($13), a Lillooet Canoe tour ($135), an ATV wilderness tour ($147), a Whistler Art Tour ($33), and a Horseback Western Ride ($100). By golly, with all of the banquets, tours, and activities, there was hardly any time for serious business. But hey, our tax dollars have to treat our politicians well don’t they?

So you might be interested to know which of our city politicians took advantage of our largesse to entertain themselves on this junket. I shall find out for sure soon along with all of their expenses charged to city taxpayers but I did send an email to all city politicians asking if they were attending this conference, whether they were being accompanied by a spouse/significant other, and who was footing the bill. I also asked if they were going to write a report on this conference on their return documenting the new information they gleaned to introduce to Oshawa to provide taxpayer value for subsidizing the trip.

I received responses from John Neal, Robert Lutczyk, April Cullen, Brian Nicholson, John Gray and John Henry, all of whom stated they were not attending the conference….Good for them!

The others, Nestor Pidwerbecki, Joe Kolodzie, Louise Parkes, Tito Dante Marimpietri, and Maryanne Sholdra did not respond to my email. I must therefore assume one of two things…1) They attended the conference but wanted to keep it a secret as best they could, or 2) They do not respect Oshawa taxpayers enough to respond to legitimate queries from them. The truth will be discovered soon! I shall file a freedom of information request to establish who attended and the costs for each that has been billed to the Oshawa taxpayer.

City Lacks Openness with Voters

To the Mayor and Council,
c/o Oshawa City Clerk

Hon. Dalton McGuinty,
Premier of Ontario

Hon. Jim Watson,
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Mr. Andre Marin,
Ontario Ombudsman

Local Press



As a person who wants to follow the actions of city council and of the concerns of residents, I find it ludicrous that city hall buries citizen letters within the agendas and minutes in such a way that no interested citizen can see copies of letters directed to the mayor and council to read their concerns and suggestions. City Council is not a private club and all information should be open to the citizens except that which is allowed to be "private" by legislation. I find this council to lack openness in the extreme with the citizens.

As an example of this, my letter addressed to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in respect of suggested changes to the Municipal Elections Act is hidden as an appendix #9 at the bottom of the April 27, 2009 City Council Agenda and the lengthy letter is simply addressed as:

9. Bill Longworth submitting his recommendations to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing concerning the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, and recommending that Oshawa Council’s resolution to change to the general vote system of election be rescinded and that every municipality in the province with a population in excess of 40,000 people be mandated to elect their councils by the ward vote system of election. (All Wards)

This may whet the appetite of interested ratepayers but there is no link for those interested to see the entire list of suggestions given when in the past such links were provided.

Is this city council's attempt to limit public input and discussion to the administration of this city.

Please provide me the bylaw addressing this change of policy or was it simply made by seat-of-the-pants political reasons to stifle citizens?

It seems to me that we have two municipal GTA governments that garner national press exposure because of their inane actions...namely Oshawa and the City of Vaughan.

I am requesting that the Oshawa City Council be more open with the citizens of this city who are charged with the responsibility of electing a vibrant council for this city.

A vibrant democracy only thrives in the presence of information, something this city continues to deny.

It was undemocratic for the city to place the election system plebiscite on the last ballot and then refuse to provide information to the citizens about the question because the mayor publicly stated at city council, that it was not city council's responsibility to provide information on a question they had asked...and this denial of information is continuing to this day.

I am also sending this letter to the Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Ontario Ombudsman with whom this city has recently been involved in a major conflict in refusing to return documents belonging to his office

VOTES submission to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who have called for public input into review of Municipal Elections Act, 1996

Please note...click title to submit your own suggestions to minister





Hon. J. Watson, Minister
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
13th floor, 777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5

Dear Sir

RE: Review of Municipal Elections Act 1996

Below I have enumerated a number of changes to be considered by your ministry as they review and revise the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. I have brought some of these suggestions to your attention in the past and have been assured that consideration would be given under this upcoming review. Some of the suggestions below are new but all have been precipitated by the City of Oshawa’s determination to revert to the “at large” or “general” vote which has proven very unsatisfactory to Oshawa in the past but does serve the politicians to secure their council seats until their death or resignation. Integral to all of the suggestions I have made below is the most basic democratic principle that, “the political system should serve the people…not the politicians.”

Oshawa City Council has voted to revert to the general vote for the election of the 2010 City Council. At 160,000 population, this would mean that the constituency of each local and regional councillor for the city would be about twice the size of our Provincial and Federal Politicians. This makes no sense for a government that is supposed to be closest to the people.

Bill 130, as it stands, allows all municipalities in Ontario to introduce the general vote unilaterally without possible appeal to any independent body as long as ward boundaries are not altered. Oshawa city council voted to revert to the general vote but to keep, but not use, their existing wards thus avoiding an OMB appeal. This was in all likelihood an unanticipated action by the drafters of Bill 130.

Oshawa’s experience with seven General Vote councils prior to 1985 was:

A) Vast areas of the city became unrepresented on council as all political power became concentrated in a few of the richer areas of the city (half the politicians lived in one defined ward while 1/5 lived in one polling subdivision in a second ward)

B) Because of the concentration of political power to specific communities, city council became less inclusive, less representative and less diverse

C) The general vote produced huge ballots (the last 11X17 inches with close to 100 names) making it impossible for voters to make informed choices. Because of the impossible task of making informed choices, voters tended to vote for the names they’d seen before…the incumbents. As a result, all change in political leadership over Oshawa’s 7 general vote councils came as a result of death or resignation of incumbents and not one incumbent was defeated out of the 107 possible seats over that period. Half the city was not represented in any of those general vote councils.

D) Because political leadership could not be changed by the vote, an aging city council became less responsive and less accountable to voters and suffered from the lack of fresh leadership. Eight aldermen out of 14 were defeated under Oshawa's first ward vote.

E) Name recognition, rather than service to the community, was basic to getting elected so grandstanding, backbiting, bitching and bickering became the method by which politicians tried to grab the press to enhance their name recognition. Council became a dysfunctional rather than productive place at the expense of the city’s health.

F) Politicians tended to deflect their interests away from serving individual constituents instead favouring the interests of large groups with the hopes that these groups would encourage their city-wide membership to support the “friendly” politicians They also tended to favour the interests of potential political donors to help them fund their expensive political campaigns.

In light of the foregoing, we would ask the following:

A) That Oshawa’s change to the general vote be rescinded and that every municipality in the province in excess of 40,000 population be mandated to elect their councils by ward vote.

B) That failing the mandating of ward voting for large municipalities, that legislation should be drafted allowing for the formation of municipal political parties including

• Political party fundraising and reporting legislation

• Political party approval and submission of slates of candidates to carry the party banner

• Provision to have political candidates identified as independents or with a party on municipal ballots

• Legislation allowing for private caucus meetings for party incumbents

C) That Legislation be introduced limiting municipal politicians to two consecutive terms to allow for the introduction of fresh ideas and fresh leadership

D) That municipal communication requirements be more rigidly defined to insure that voters are sufficiently informed re the ramifications of any plebiscite question being asked by a municipal council

E) That municipal political campaigns be publicly funded consistent with the vote success of candidates as only incumbents at present are able to secure political donations. All such private donations should be prohibited and past surplus monies raised by politicians and kept by the clerk should be folded into city revenues or returned to the donors.

F) That consideration be given to eliminating local councils and local civic administrations where the municipality is part of a regional government. Elimination of this redundant administrative duplication would generate significant cost savings to the municipal taxpayer with the upper senior tier easily accommodating the existing minor responsibilities of the lower tier

G) That in the event that lower tier civic administrations are not eliminated, that local councilors in these administrations be eliminated as redundant.

I would be pleased to attend and provide input or testimony at any meeting or session where the issue of ward vs general vote is being considered or discussed or where further input is requested for any of my suggestions.

In support of the above requests, we have provided links below my signature to some important supporting information appearing on our website www.oshawaspeaks.ca

Sincerely,
Bill Longworth
Chair VOTES (Vote To Eliminate Self-serving politicians)
159 Spirea Court,
Oshawa, Ontario
L1G6S8

905 579 3971 (home)
905 809 1875 (mobile)








Links to Additional Supporting Information

• Bill Longworth, Feb. 5, 2007 presentation to City Council arguing for retention of ward voting in Oshawa

• Bill Longworth, April 30, 2007 city council presentation re. problems with the general vote

• Mayor explains City Council has no duty to inform voters of plebiscite details

• Open Letter to Premier

• Letter to Canadian Civil Liberties Association

• VOTES files complaint with Ontario Ombudsman re Oshawa General Vote plebisite process

• Letter to Editor of 250 Ontario newspapers explaining the need for change

• Letter to J. Gerretsen and Premier McGuinty asking for legislative changes to allow for municipal political parties if Oshawa’s General Vote Bylaw is allowed to stand

• Letter to J. Gerretsen quoting parts of 1985 OMB finding (M840053-March 21, 1985) directing ward vote to be implemented in Oshawa

• Council votes to deny providing information to public about general vote

• Bill Longworth argues for disbanding Oshawa Civic Administration and complete integration of entire Civic Administration into Durham Region to dismantle a redundant level of government and its unneeded expense to city taxpayers

• Why ward system is best and why then did city council vote for the general vote

• Letter to Premier suggesting Province employ Oshawa’s “NO COST” plebiscite process to provincial electoral reform question

• Council gets stymied by its own plebiscite-type question—the type of question they insisted was easy to understand and couldn’t possibly confuse the public

City Councillor's Travel Budgets

The following letter to the editor has been reprinted from Oshawa This Week with the author's permission


To the Editor,
Oshawa This Week
Feb. 9 Letter to the Editor

In reading the February 6th article with respect to granting further tax payer's money for Oshawa council's travel needs, I think Oshawa tax payers should be outraged not just at increasing travel budgets, but even considering sending City personnel to Whistler, BC for a conference.

Do these councillors not get it? In these difficult times, with layoff notices now counting in the thousands, council should be looking at reducing spending on things such as travel not increasing it.

Councillor Parkes says it is essential to attend these FCM conferences because "...it's where they learn best practices and keep up on what is happening in other municipalities." Well, certainly these “best practices” from previously attended conferences does not seem to have benefited Oshawa tax payers as we now have the highest municipal tax rate in Canada. This has occurred due to this Council’s breath taking spending spree over the past number of years on arenas and recreational centers to the tune of $84 million, $10 to 12 million on the new City Hall and of course $250,000 on miniatures which are in City storage with no buyer to be found.

Current debt load for the City is over $105 million with the interest cost alone projected to be over $12 million for 2009. Council has also drained most of their reserve funds and the Oshawa PUC, so nothing for a rainy day which everyone now knows is upon us. We are only weeks away from knowing what are tax increases are going to be for this year, which is going to be a struggle for many Oshawa families.

If Councillor Parkes and her like minded colleagues want to know what is going on in other municipalities that have “best practices” in place, they should pick up a telephone and talk to them about it and not go on a tax payer paid boondoggle.

James Sprague,
Oshawa

Other published Letters to the Editor by Mr. Sprague

Councii has duty to be open with citizens
Council keeps making same mistakes



Site Editor's Comment

The Toronto Star recently published an article listing Poland as a week-long conference destination for some Oshawa politicians. This would allow city politicians of Eastern European Heritage free holidays to their homeland at taxpayer's expense. How long will city taxpayer's tolerate politicians deciding where they want to travel and then fabricating justifications for taxpayers to pick up the tab to get there? All international and out-of-Province Conferences should be barred from public funding. Taxpayers cannot afford to be constantly sending politicians on these junkets. Taxes are high enough without letting politicians holiday and party at our expense.

Too much Spin! Let's be real!

Oshawa City politicians are forever stretching the truth about Oshawa...and we've had enough. Let's make it great rather than saying it's great. We'll all recognize our greatness when we achieve it.

We're forever being told that Oshawa is the third best place to live in the world, that it won design awards for our tax draining GM Centre, The Legends Centre and the South Oshawa Community Centre, has won marketing awards for its downtown restaurants, and that we'll a GDP growth leader in Canada through 2011.

It's about time that city politicians got down to brass tax to work toward solutions to our problems rather than spending inordinate amounts of costly staff time in entering contests and spending our tax money on spreading the word through news services and image marketers. Action is far more important than words!

Nowhere are we being told by city politicians that we have the highest property tax in the GTA, that we have the highest EI spike in Canada and that welfare rolls are on the rise. No where are we being reminded of the Cullen Gardens Miniatures fiasco, the sorry state of the downtown and its business failures often attributable to city staff red tape, or to raids on Durham College/UOIT students residences to seek housing agreements. Nor are we reminded by the mayor of his pleas for increased taxing increases to cover wild council spending sprees. Lastly, we are not reminded by the Mayor and Council of our future city council voting system that is not used in any large city in the country. Worst of all, we are not told that council refuses to communicate important information to its citizen. When city council voted to hold a plebiscite on our municipal election system, they refused to tell us the details of the plan, what the change would do for the city, why we needed a change, or indeed what the question meant as the mayor said it was not council's responsibility to inform voters about the question. They worded the question in a convoluted and difficult to understand way and kept it a secret until voters were confronted with it in the voting booth...Democracy requires an informed public and council strategized to limit public information.

Oshawa City Council demolished North Oshawa Arena and City Hall because of forward maintenance costs. >They have now voted to demolish Civic Auditorium with the same rationale. "These buildings are old," they argued, "and costly to maintain."

City Hall's solution was to demolish the older buildings and replace them with new claiming significant savings. "Spend $50 million plus all the financing costs on General Motors Center to save $1 million on Civic Arena repairs," they said, "and spend another $50 million plus financing costs on city hall rebuilding and refurbishing because "A" wing had a leaky roof.

The North Oshawa Arena demolition, the City Hall demolition, and Rundle House demolition were all done by the same contractor who will undoubtedly be awarded the contract to demolish the Civic as well as Harman Park Arena and Children's Arena when they are scheduled for demolition.

The questionnable decision to demolish Oshawa's real estate assets, and strategically replace them with new arenas in the richer areas of Oshawa thus depriving children in the older areas of community ice facilities raises other questions. How is it that the one contractor is demolishing all of these buildings? Were they put out to tender? Were they tendered as a group even though council had not yet voted on their demolition? If they were were put out to individual tender, how come one contractor was able to come in with the lowest tender on all? Of course far more serious questions arise which I shall let astute readers identify for themselves!

In any case, the common rationale given by politicians and staff for the demolition of the old and replacement with the new was to save on maintenance and repair costs. This would lead to a belief that maintenance and repair costs would be negligible on the new facilties which have been widely acclaimed by the city for their quality of design and construction. In reality, and not at all communicated to the public by the politicians, is in its first three years, the Legends Centre has undergone major repairs with the disintegration of terrazo flooring in some parts of the facility and at the present time the walking track has been closed because of leaking roof problems. This is the very problem politicians claimed of "A" wing of city hall. They voted to tear that down! I wonder now in the interests of consistency whether they will take the same decision on the Legends Centre.

In the interests of "truth" and not the political "spin" justifying all of the expenditures, the pictures following will be proof positive about questions of "quality" and of the need for continuing maintenance and repair in even our newest facilities. If our newest facilities need ongoing maintenance and repair, what is the merit of the city hall argument to demolish and replace to avoid upkeep costs. It's like rebuilding your house when it needs to be shingled!

But hey!!! This city hall "bomb and rebuild" rationale keeps us on top of the heap as the highest taxed region in the GTA. It justifies our motto, "Prepare to be amazed!"

With such questionnable decision making and such wastage of citizen's hard earned tax dollars, no wonder that city council bunch wants to isolate itself from public accountability with the self serving general vote that protects their jobs until they die or retire.



Our "best-design-in-North-America" Legends Centre from December to March each year...I don't suppose city officials informed the judges of this major design flaw! They "snowed" them as they continually "snow" Oshawa taxpayers!











Our "best-design-in-North-America" Legends Centre has numerous cracks in the terrazo of the main hall...This looks like a "quality issue in this 3 year old building...perhaps the floor was laid on an unstable base and will only get worse over time! This absolutely destroys the merit of Council's rationale about destroying older buildings to avoid maintenance costs! Perhaps this defect continues under the ice pad floors!










Our "best-design-in-North-America" Legends Centre has already replaced this hallway of terrazo leading into the pool changerooms in this 3 year old building






Our "best-design-in-North-America" Legends Centre has giant cracks in the concrete sidewalks leading to the main door...This looks like another "quality issue" in this 3 year old building...perhaps the whole structure was laid on an unstable base and will only get worse over time leading to perpetual and major repairs...perhaps even demolition of an unstable building! Sections of this concrete sidewalk have already been replaced once again leading to a major defect in council's thinking...they wanted to avoid ongoing maintenance costs in older buildings by demolishing them and rebuilding...So much for that brilliant idea that has cost taxpayers plenty!

Why the Ward System is Best...and why then did city council want the general vote

Why did the general vote question arise out of the blue from the politicians? Why did council not provide information about the change to every household? Why did council not make this an important issue for public debate before the vote? What are the benefits to Oshawa of the change? What is the rationale for the change? Why did some council members press so hard for the change?...How will the change help Oshawa? Why? Why? Why? Too many questions….and not one answer!

Why did council ask the plebiscite and not tell us any of the aforementioned details. The answer is easy...They wanted the general vote because it insures incumbent's re-election and so they designed a difficult and convoluted question that nobody understood, kept the question as quiet as they could to avoid public discourse and discussion, and kept the question secret to confront voters for the first time in the voting booth. Realizing that "YES" answers are more likely from those who don't understand the question, they designed a question where a "YES" vote favoured a rejection of the ward system...a system that no one had publicly faulted. They did all this because they wanted a system that served politicians rather than the people. The Mayor even stated publicly that it was not city council's responsibility to inform the public about details of the question council itself had decided to ask voters. Incredible! If council wanted a considered and accurate measure on the question, they would have provided information. Because council didn't provide the information, they showed they didn't care about an accurate measure of public opinion...they just cared about introducing a voting system that would serve their personal interests...and so they designed a strategy to fool voters into giving politicians the answer they wanted... Incredulous!

Even more important--- politicians knew that there was no justification beyond their political self interest for asking the question and implementing the general vote and that no student of Canadian Municipal Politics could ever be convinced that it was best for large cities like Oshawa.

In Niagara Falls, Ontario, during a 2000 ballot pebiscite, the majority of citizens voted in favour of retaining the ward system. But because less than 50% of eligible voters turned out at the polls, the city council was legally able to ignore the results of the plebiscite. They ignored the plebiscite because they favored the general vote. Here in Oshawa, politicians supported the non-binding plebescite result because they favoured a change to the general vote. In 1985, Oshawa City Council ignored a plebiscite favoring ward voting because they wanted to retain the general vote. How politicians handle non-binding plebiscites has nothing to do with democratically upholding the public will but rather what action supports Council's desired outcome.

A citizen group in Niagara Falls developed and published a document listing 99 reasons to keep the ward system. Excerpted here are 29 solid reasons that pertain to Guelph...and to Oshawa

You may also be interested to read the rationale for suggesting the general vote for London by its prime mover, Councillor Rocco Furfaro. You'll see that they are about as significant as Oshawa Councillor Nester Pidwerbecki's rationale for suggesting the plebiscite question for Oshawa.

REASONS WHY A WARD SYSTEM IS BETTER FOR GUELPH (AND OBVIOUSLY FOR OSHAWA)

1. Every area of the city deserves equal representation.
2. The ward system encourages councillors to become fully knowledgeable about the area they represent.
3. Running in a ward makes councillors more accountable to neighbourhood voters.
4. The at-large system gives an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates.
5. There is not, nor has there ever been, any public desire to abolish the current ward system.
6. The ward system works. City council has never offered any substantial evidence to the contrary.
7. Your vote carries more weight in ward elections.
8. Without a ward system, local politics will become more remote than ever before.
9. The ward system prevents the undesirable possibility of having all councillors come from the same area of town.
10. A council elected at-large is more susceptible to being influenced by non-territorially based special interest groups.
11. The city is growing and becoming more diverse. A ward system can best accommodate these changes.
12. The ward system gives us a diversity of opinion on council.
13. Election debates are unworkable in an at-large system.
14. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that “the cream rises to the top” in an at-large system.
15. Citizens who need help know exactly who to contact and can hold them directly accountable at election time.
16. Printing election materials and lawn signs for over 60,000 voters would be cost prohibitive.
17. Guelph is too large for councillors to have intimate knowledge of every neighbourhood in the city.
18. Ward elections allow candidates to personally visit each home in the ward, to speak personally with a member of each household they seek to represent.
19. An at-large election system means more candidates and longer ballots. This makes it extremely difficult for voters to thoroughly consider the issues or ask questions of each and every candidate.
20. In a democracy, it is important to make informed decisions. Ward elections, by facilitating face-to-face interaction between voters and candidates, help voters become better-informed.
21. In the at-large system, every councillor will be competing against every other councillor. That makes it more difficult for incumbent councillors to build mutual trust and camaraderie.
22. Federal, provincial, and regional elections are all based on the ward system.
23. In a city of roughly 110,000 people, it simply makes sense to have city politicians take responsibility for neighbourhood problems through a ward system.
24. The trend in Ontario, in Canada, and across North America is towards adopting ward systems.
25. Your councillor likely lives, drives, walks, and shops in your neighborhood. This gives councillors a better understanding of neighbourhood issues and allows them to be proactive in dealing with neighbourhood problems.
26. At-large systems only tend to exist very small homogeneous communities. Guelph does not fit this criteria.
27. Under the at-large system, there is a greater possibility of having a homogeneous group of people representing a heterogeneous city.
28. Newmarket is one of only three medium sized municipalities in Ontario that has an at-large system. The City is currently in the process of adopting a ward system after citizens voted to dump the at-large system in a 2000 referendum.
29. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

There you go Oshawa...you don't have to take my word for it that ward voting is best in serving the people. The initiative for change to the general vote comes from politicians who know that it secures and guarantees their political futures. Their private rationale is for a "self-serving" election system but their publicly stated rationale always falls far short of a full load. Why? Because a return to the general vote cannot be justified on any grounds by any thinking person. There simply is no public benefit of the general vote...but there are a number of deficits which have been cited in various posts on this site.