save our markhamCommunity comments
markham growth planning
markham growth planning
stop the apartment belt
important dates
markham agriculture
high rise troubles
contact
community comments
home


Mission Statement

To provide a forum that will take a broad view of significant issues in Markham that should be of concern to all citizens and present these issues of importance to as many of the residents of Markham as possible so that they can make their own informed decisions.

Vision Statement

That Markham will continue to be the community that all residents will be proud to call home.

Comments

Letter to Mayor
May 3, 2010
Dear Mayor Scarpitti,


As we look one or two generations ahead, we see that the Canada of the future will be a time of oil depletion, global warming, flooding, drought and water scarcity. As globalization shifts towards localization, Markham's need for the food belt will only increase.

That's why it is imperative that the children and grandchildren of Markham be allowed to inherit these food belt lands. Paving over the food belt will lock future generations into the unsustainable, global food systems of today, making them out-of-step with the locally-based food systems of tomorrow.

Development will only relieve the pressures of urban sprawl temporarily. We are the stewards of a land that belongs to all future generations. Let us remind ourselves that Paving is Permanent.


Respectfully Yours,
Alfred Carn

Letter to Mayor and Council
April 8, 2010
Mayor Frank Scarpitti and Council
Corporation of the Town of Markham
101 Town Centre Boulevard
Markham, Ontario L3R 9W3

re: Growth Management Study

Council will be making a very important decision in April on the future of Markham over the next 20 years. Council is faced with the onerous task of accommodating a 50% increase in Markham’s population. There is also the strong need to continue to attract leading corporations to fulfill the ‘Markham 2020 Economic Competitiveness Strategy’ by providing sufficient employment lands in Markham within the 25 year period ending 2031.

Leading up to that decision you provided ample opportunity for residents and special interest groups to present their views. Some had a genuine interest in the future of Markham while others were putting forth their own wide sweeping agenda well beyond the scope of the ‘Growth Management Study’. In addition, there was a barrage of emails and letters that were significant in number but not necessarily in content.

In mid-November I was receiving information that a number of ratepayer associations were hosting meetings to review the proposed growth in Markham. The presentations were one-sided and proposed unrealistic solutions. With the onset of the holiday season it became obvious that getting alternate messages out to the public through ratepayer associations was not working. Amidst all of this I, together with a group of supporters, formed ‘Save Our Markham’ to encourage a responsible approach to growth. The route chosen was to do some advertising which brought about the desired result; namely public interest.

Our concern is that based on some of the proposals before Council, the Markham that attracted so many of us to live here will be changed to a Scarborough north. Our much sought after ground level living with lawns, patios and gardens will be overshadowed by the addition of multiple apartment buildings throughout our neighbourhoods. The obvious solution is to follow the staff recommendations as detailed in the ‘Growth Management Study’ dated October 27, 2009. The ‘Study’ and staff’s recommendation calls for balanced growth and we yield to their expertise as to whether the intensification should be 60% versus 52% but definitely not 100%.

Markham is a strong, well governed and respected municipality. Council has provided the leadership and Town Staff has managed the ways and means to create a healthy atmosphere for its citizens. In addition, Markham has been highly successful in attracting quality corporations to locate here by demonstrating our ability to provide the infrastructure and quality residential neighbourhoods for their employees. As stated in one of my presentations to Council, corporations do not turn on a dime but do long term planning when considering a location to build. Any disruption by delaying a growth plan would seriously hinder Markham’s competitive edge in continuing to attract business and employment opportunities to our town.

Farming, like Markham, has evolved and what were the farms of many of our founding families are no longer viable. Modern farmers must make a considerable investment in land, equipment and infrastructure to be successful. Locally grown produce to satisfy the demands of the consumers and provide a viable income for the farmers is an interesting concept that requires further study.. Should Council wish to embark on a partnership with the farming community in producing locally grown produce there is ample land within the ‘Greenbelt’ upon which to conduct a trial project.

We don’t need to choose between managed growth and farming. By delaying the implementation of the ‘Growth Management Study’ you are not helping the farmers who were an important chapter in the history of Markham. I had sent to all Council members the Frasier Institute report on the British Columbia experience in reserving agricultural use only farmland. Based on their report, which was commissioned for the province, the project failed in many ways. I have attached the Executive Summary of the report for your information.

In conclusion we ask that you please support your staff recommendations to manage growth over the next 21 years. To relinquish this responsibility would condemn future Councils to workaround concessions and ad hoc solutions to meet the needs of a growing Markham. And should the situation arise future Councils would be faced with negative public reaction when apartment buildings are proposed for their neighbourhoods if the wrong decisions are made now.

The modern growth of Markham has been well managed by Council and Staff. We, in Markham, are leaders in planned growth by implementing strong Secondary Plans in consultation with shareholder partners including local residents. As Markham matures into the final stages of growth we need to continue with what has made us successful as a community that attracts a variety of people and business that are proud to call Markham home.

Yours truly,
Save Our Markham

Tom Farrar

Presentation to Markham Council February 2010 My name is Glenn Crosby. My family and I have lived in southern York Region for almost 40 years and, of that, 29 years was in old Unionville.

I have always believed in this Town and have contributed in a number of areas to positively support the betterment of this community; 13 years on the Board of Markham Stouffville Hospital. - 3 years as Chair, past chairman of the Unionville Village Festival, Steering committee of the Varley Art Gallery, Past Chairman of the Markham Board of Trade, Co-chair of the Mayor’s Task Force against the Dump in the Bob Rae time,
and currently chair of the Unionville Home Society including Unionvilla.

Sprawl is a concern for us all. Urban growth is a complex issue and simplistic answers do not solve the problem. The reality is there is a great demand for housing in the GTA and in Markham we have been mandated to assume some of the growth. Saying no to available land doesn’t address the demand issue. Less land, sustained demand equals increased land prices.

But a greater issue that this proposed change fails to recognize is that farms are businesses that must generate enough money to support the families that work the farms and allow investment in farming infrastructure and equipment. There have also been countless examples from deputations outlining the difficulties of the farming business being compatible with adjacent residential subdivisions. – The odour of manure and equipment on roadways are the two classic issues. But in the Beckett case there was a By-law passed by Markham Council some 30 + years ago limiting the size of their dairy operation.

The Beckett family recognized that for their family’s success in the family business they have to run independent operations with the resources to sustain the different family groups with a reasonable income and funds for infrastructure.

To that end the family started to liquidate their Markham farming operations about 6 years ago. They immediately purchased working farms just north. I assisted them in the second part of that plan with the sale last fall of the biggest farm of 204 acres at Kennedy & 16th. The family siblings, and or, their offspring now own and operate working farms on some 1,100 acres in the northern part of York Region & Durham, most within less than 45 minutes of their old farm; locally grown food within 100 km. As a regional community we have gained more farmland being worked in an efficient businesslike manner supporting 5 separate families.

At an age would most of us would be well established in retirement the senior Becketts have chosen to continue their commitment to farming. This is only possible for them all with the proceeds of sale of their Markham farms. Economic viability could not have been achieved on their Markham farms.

The Markham Foodbelt Plan will cost us all.

Markham Economist & Sun, L. H. Tiffansy Hsieh 2010/02/25 Motion to halt growth in Markham deferred
Markham Economist & Sun, L. H. Tiffansy Hsieh Feb 25, 2010
http://www.yorkregion.com/news/local/article/623646--motion-to-halt-growth-in-markham-deferred

A motion that would see Markham request a reduction in its population target and halt urban boundary expansion was deferred by town council Tuesday night.
Introduced to council on Feb. 9 by Deputy Mayor Jack Heath and Regional Councillor Joe Virgilio, the motion calls on the province and region to take 40,000 people off their population targets for Markham and for Markham’s new official plan to stop urban boundary expansion.
The motion attracted 11 deputations to council chamber as well as e-mails and letters.
Local farmer Kim Empringham has been a constant voice for the York Region Federation of Agriculture throughout town meetings on growth management.
She said there are less than 10 farmers that own their land in the whitebelt that are currently farming and those with a second generation willing to farm are not located in Markham.
She said the suggestion that farmers want the same payout as the Beckett farm is far from the truth.
“Beckett’s situation is unique and it won’t be duplicated,” she said. “The land is not in the whitebelt. We are not asking for $100 million — we know we’ll never get $100 million.”
Markham lawyer Donald Hindson represents nine farming families in the whitebelt as well as the Burkholders and the Reesors in the greenbelt.
He said the reduction of population target is unlikely to occur as it places the burden onto another municipality.
“I don’t want our town to be looked at as a cry-baby or suffering from the symptom of ‘I don’t want it in our backyard,’” he said.
Jim Robb of the Rouge Duffins Greenspace Coalition has been another steady presence throughout the town’s growth management process.
He reminded council that Markham was “trapped in the box by the province…and you need to go back and ask them to help,” he said.
“God only created so much land and so much soil.”
Mr. Robb added that 10 farmers in Markham is manageable for the town to make sure they won’t be taken advantage of financially.
However, Mr. Heath said his motion is not about the foodbelt, which he stressed falls under the province’s responsibility.
He said his concern is based on traffic gridlock and the 30,000 cars that would emerge with 40,000 people north of Major MacKenzie Drive. He said Markham hasn’t expanded its urban boundary for 15 years and the whitebelt hasn’t been part of the town’s planning.
Councillor Dan Horchik said reducing the population target has some merit, but neither the region nor the province support changing the target.
“You are barking up the wrong tree,” he said.
Mr. Horchik also pointed out that Mr. Heath’s motion was introduced before last week’s public meeting at the Hilton Suites and questioned whether Mr. Heath and Mr. Virgilio listened to any of the deputations.
For Regional Councillor Gordon Landon, what the motion is really saying is, “’We don’t want those people anymore. We are full.’ I don’t think that should be the message we are sending out,” he said.
However, Mr. Virgilio defended the motion, saying it’s a “pressure point” to get funding from the province for transit.
“There are no new roads being planned…that’s why I seconded the motion,” he said. “We are not closing the door — 90,000 people, come on, that’s a lot of people.”
Mr. Virgilio said the town should focus on developing Markham Centre, Langstaff and Cornell, VIVA and the Yonge subway before expanding the boundary.
“I understand the farmers’ position better now, but we shouldn’t be making planning decisions on the town based on land value or how a few farmers are going to be treated,” he said.
Mayor Frank Scarpitti agrees the population target is critical, but said it’s just one of many aspects of Markham’s growth management strategy.
“This motion is really premature until the report (from staff) comes back in April. It’s a critical aspect, but it’s here illegitimately,” he said.
The mayor added that stopping urban expansion will not solve transit problems.
“Without the infrastructure in place, it’ll be 1,000 times worse,” he said.
Councillor John Webster called for council to defeat the motion in its entirety. He said Mr. Heath made a good point about 30,000 cars, but that if the urban boundary remains as is, “Those 30,000 cars will originate in the current settlement area,” he said.
“We should defeat it, because it’s wrong in general. Nobody has had a chance to talk about this. It’s an end-run around our system.”
In a recorded vote, Mr. Webster and Regional Councillor Jim Jones were the only ones who voted against the motion being deferred. Councillors Logan Kanapathi and Alex Chiu were absent.

Letter to the Unionville Ratepayers Association
2010/02/03
Good Morning Harry,

Thank you for your invitation to all Markham ratepayer associations to attend your monthly meeting on Monday evening. As a guest I choose not to become involved in what was being said as it would have been disruptive to the meeting which was for your members.

Your first speaker, John Stillich, had an interesting presentation that has some value and certainly worthy of a further look. I think it will be a difficult concept to implement in our (normal) winter conditions.

Your second speaker, Jim Robb, was another matter. I have been on committees and attended many public meetings where Mr. Robb was present. He uses some facts to embellish his ‘truths’ depending on the audience that he is attempting to influence.

First I would like to address the ‘Stop the Apartment Belt’ ads that he claimed were done by developers. As I became aware of the current issue of the need for Markham to plan on a population increase of 151,000 new residents between 2006 and 2031 I tried to rally all Markham ratepayer associations to the cause in late November. The timing was critical as we were faced with a decision to be made by the Region of York Council in early January that would directly affect Markham. There was little response from the ratepayers associations mostly (apparently) due to the upcoming holiday season. I then decided to put an ad out that would draw attention to all residents of Markham. TACC construction had recommended an agency that I called and they mistakenly started the file in the name of TACC. When the mistake was realized it was corrected. I alone was invoiced and paid for the ad.

In Mr. Robb’s presentation he made a casual statement that developers and farmers were in partnership as the developers (and I am paraphrasing) had made secret deals with the farmers. When challenged on providing proof he shrugged off the question by saying (paraphrasing) that it is a known fact. When further asked if he had anything in writing he did not.

Mr. Robb frequently referred to a report issued by the TRCA as proof of his claims. And in particular his ‘scare’ tactic that Unionville homes could be flooded by development to the north is an example. In other meetings he has challenged the TRCA on their data and resulting reports. Picking selective sections from a book or document has been a common practice throughout history by those trying to spread their own doctrine. The other point that needs to be made about flooding Unionville is that it totally discounts the very capable engineering that the Town of Markham demands of any project. Mr. Robb has also blamed farming that he now wants to protect as a source of pollution, again without proof.

The ‘food belt’ as proposed is not a viable concept although it certainly sounds good on paper. Mr. Robb and some councillors’ proposal to draw an arbitrary line across Major Mackenzie on which farming is good on one side is not the way farming is practiced. We read extensive testimonials from farmers that certain areas are not profitable for all the reasons outlined in the Markham Agricultural Assessment Study. Small vegetable farms won’t survive in our economy. As consumers we want ‘fresh’ produce and the Markham area climate will only produce one crop of fruits or vegetables a year. The simple economics are that to make money, the farmer would have to receive 3 to 4 times the price that you currently pay for produce from countries that have a year-round growing season.

In closing I would encourage everyone to visit www.saveourmarkham.ca where they will have access to Town of Markham reports on growth and comments from others expressing views from both sides. Please make up your own mind based on the facts and attend the February 16th Town Meeting.

Yours truly,

Tom Farrar

Email received 2010/02/01 from Kirk Sutherland Taxpayers and citizens of Markham should be both perplexed and astonished by the proposed foodbelt plan being promoted by a coalition of elected municipal officials.

This initiative is persuasively motivated by Thornhill Councillors Erin Shapero, and Valerie Burke. They are the influential catalysts behind a plan that would theoretically create a foodbelt to be situated within Markham's current rural farm boundaries. It is believed that such a plan would halt future urban expansion by declaring these privately owned lands as a permanently sectioned agricultural jurisdiction.

Such a contemptuous measure sets a dangerous and alarming precedent. No longer is this a debate concerning sustainable food supplies, or on the threat mankind possess on the environment. The quintessential essence at the core of the dispute is the single fundamental right and freedom of property ownership, and its possible eradication, which seems to be motivationally driven by autocratic single issued public officials.

Property is defined as a physical or intangible entity that is owned by 1 or more individuals. A property owner has the right to sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, and even destroy elements within the confines of their property.
In a democratic, just, and civil society private property ownership is the single most significant investment a person will endow.

The landowners within the proposed designated foodbelt jurisdiction are conscientious, forthright, taxpaying, citizens. They are proficiently capable to make their own decisions, accommodations, and conclusions as to the future of their land. They should not be deceptively put into a position of duress due to draconian, restrictive government policy.

Politicians are elected public servants. It is not their vocation, and they should never assume they have the power, capacity and authority to override the basic Canadian principal of freedom and right to private property ownership.

It appears that some elected municipal officials have no concern, or apprehension regarding the fate and consequence of people's life investments. In reality we are witnessing a politically motivated manoeuvre, socially engineered to accommodate an agenda unjustifiably laden in a political philosophy of subordination.

Erin Shapero and Valerie Burke do not represent the farmers of rural Markham. For, no elected representative or government body should ever have the hierarchical authorization to alter personal investments, and prevail over one's choice, freedom and control of land, property, and assets.

Both Councillor Shapero and Councillor Burke own properties. How would they react if their Thornhill properties were threatened by a government policy that would directly deflate their property values, and relinquishing future control and dominion on their land and investment?

Letter published Markham Economist and Sun January 30, 2010 Pay fair value for farms
Re: Kudos to council for foodbelt proposal, letter to the editor from Gwendolyn Kaegh, Jan. 16.
I’m glad Ms Kaegh has such a warm and fuzzy feeling inside. Maybe she should pause and consider the farmers that would be affected by this foodbelt proposal.
What about their property value?
Would Ms Kaegh or Councillors Erin Shapero or Valerie Burk mind if their homes’ value was 80 per cent less than homes down the street?
This is extremely unfair.
The town should pay these farmers fair market, developable, prices. Then the town can really do what it wants, since it will own the land.
They could rent the land to some willing farmer (if any are left) or they could plant trees, or whatever makes them feel good.
I’ve heard one councillor say Markham’s taxpayers should not have to pay for these farmers’ retirement/pensions.
Well excuse me. I bet councillors get a very attractive pension and have a great benefit package.
Didn’t we give former mayor Don Cousens a nice little bonus when he left?
Farmers don’t have company pensions or health or dental plans. They didn’t buy these farms a couple of years ago on speculation. Many have been farming for generations.
To stick them with such a proposal is nothing more than blackmail.
Farming is one of the toughest jobs going. Not only labour wise but weather wise.
For cash croppers, every year, planting what and when is a gamble.
Rising seed, fertilizer, fuel and equipment costs, all depending on the weather?
And now the town wants to say, “no, your land has to remain agricultural, so you just carry on”, regardless of the farmer’s age or health?
This proposal is not fair. Here has to be an alternative solution.
Gary Mount
Markham
Letter published Toronto Star 2010/01/23 Markham growth all about sustainability

Re Developer denies ties to Markham ad, Jan. 20

A homeowner who may want to sell his own property for a profit? Now there is a story that your urban, home-owning readers can relate to.

Oh right. Farmers are second-class citizens who should feel guilty about any appreciation of their own assets. They should suffer quietly so that urban professionals can sleep at night in the satisfied belief that the world is a better place without any effort or financial sacrifice on their part.

To my knowledge, you haven’t once reported that most Markham farmers strongly oppose the so-called “White Belt” initiative. At the recent Markham council meeting, farmers filled the chambers and consistently reported that they can’t make a living on small-scale farming, especially within an already urban community.

The most relevant issue is sustainable growth. While you advocate building skyscrapers along busy corridors, Markham is not Toronto. Most local residents have chosen our community because of its mix of small neighbourhoods and more concentrated development.

Outward growth can be environmentally sustainable and sound. Citizens have the right to choose a home with a backyard to grow their own vegetables and play with their kids. Taking away that right is social engineering akin to mandating that all new immigrants live in the far north. It is unfair to ask new residents to give up this dream, while others maintain such pleasures.
Anne-Marie Markovits, Markham

Letter published in the Markham Economist & Sun 2010/01/23 Councillor should try hand at farming

Re: FARMERS DENOUNCE FOODBELT - Thursday January 14, 2010.

Most local farmers strongly oppose the “whitebelt” initiative. Many of the farmers who filled the Markham council chambers to voice their concerns have been active, hardworking members of the community for a lifetime.

They spoke from their hearts with dignity and the knowledge of real-life farming issues in the year 2010.

The farmers shared a consistent message of the hardships involved in modern day farming and the right to hold on to some flexibility and individual decision-making about the land they own.

Obviously, Councillor Erin Shapero has no intention of actually listening to the farmers.

Displaying hostility and disrespect towards the farmers, she arrogantly dismisses their concerns as being “all about their vested interests”.

Yes, that’s right, Ms Shapero, the farmers who have toiled with their bare hands for decades know a thing or two about farming and do have a vested interest in what happens to the land they legally own.

Doesn’t every homeowner have a vested interest in maintaining the value of their own property? Is that a right reserved for affluent suburban homeowners (who have grown accustomed to constant price appreciation of their homes)?

It is insulting to farmers to suggest they don’t care about the environment. How many of us can honestly say we have demonstrated our concern for the environment more than farmers?

I have a solution to this dilemma. Perhaps Ms Shapero (and the coalition she leads) can “put her money where her mouth is”.

All they have to do is give up their urban comforts, buy some farmland and, at a fair price, risk huge depreciation of their asset because of meddling by various interest groups and show us how to support a family on a small farm.

After 40 years, my family hasn’t figured out how to do it.

Ann-Marie Markovits
Markham

Letter published in the Markham Economist & Sun 2010/01/23 Farmers have right to realize on investment

Re: FARMERS DENOUNCE FOODBELT - Thursday January 14, 2010.

L. H. Tiffany Hsieh’s front page story is an accurate report of Tuesday evening’s meeting in the Town of Markham’s Council Chambers.  I was in attendance and was quite moved by the passion of several speakers who were farmers defending their rights. Well known Markham family names such as Miller and Lewis talked of generations of farming in Markham that are coming to an end as they are well beyond retirement age and farming in their area is no longer viable. We also heard from current generation farmers on the difficulties of farming in Markham and restating their desire to keep farming now and for the future.

Alan Wells of Rouge Park made a very good presentation on how agriculture will be able to continue within the boundaries of the park yielding to pressures from farmers who have made presentations to Rouge Park at every opportunity. One major exception will be the Bob Hunter Park west of Reesor Road where all Class 1 farmland will be taken out of food production and reforested.

Markham’s Agricultural Study was also presented by Margaret Walton. A study of this document reveals that the concerns expressed by the farmers are very real and somewhat universal to the GTA. The issues are complex. Farming is a business and when farmers are compelled to make the decision that farming is no longer viable they too must continue to have the right to realize on their investment in land and equipment as best suits their needs for retirement.

I started ‘Save Our Markham’ as an ongoing organization to take a broad view of everything that is happening in Markham that should be of concern to all citizens. I am, contrary to efforts by opposing views, not working on behalf of any specific group. I will present the issues to as many of the residents as possible for them to make their own decisions.

Save our Markham

Tom Farrar

Toronto Star 2010/01/20 Phinjo Gombu Urban Affairs Reporter
Published On Wed Jan 20 2010
Eyebrows have been raised over the source of a recent full-page ad in a Markham newspaper warning about the dangers of unbridled intensification as the city considers a bold proposal for a permanent food belt.
The plan would prevent development in a 2,000-hectare agricultural zone within the city and allow intensification along major corridors and specific areas.
When Tom Farrar, the man who said he paid for the ad, accidentally emailed a proof, it was revealed the client for the ad's design was TACC Construction Ltd.
The construction company, several people who saw the email pointed out to the Star, is owned by developer Silvio DeGasperis, one of a number of landowners who have speculated on land inside the zone where the proposed food belt could be located.
Asked to explain why TACC's name appears on the proof for the ad, Ken Rovinelli, a land development consultant with TACC, said it was an unfortunate mistake.
"We are not paying for designing or running the advertisement in question," Rovinelli said.
TACC, he explained, knows Farrar as head of the Box Grove Residents Association in the city's east end, where the company is involved in a residential and employment project.
All TACC did, Rovinelli said, was refer its design firm to Farrar when he asked the developer to recommend a designer.
One of the designers with PM Design, he said, had "mistakenly started the file with a TACC tag as they do when undertaking our Box Grove work."
"This miscue has been corrected," said Rovinelli.
Farrar, a local management consultant who said he came up with the phrase "Stop the Apartment Belt" to counter the food belt proposal, said he is concerned a Jane-Finch style corridor of apartment buildings could spring up if development is restricted to within the city boundaries.
"I just don't like the way they are being planned," said Farrar, adding he didn't mind gated communities.
Councillor Erin Shapero, who along with Councillor Valerie Burke is spearheading the food belt plan, called the ad "fear mongering."
They say thoughtful intensification along major nodes, and corridors – as is being proposed in many other GTA cities – and the food belt proposal are necessary to curb sprawl and create densities that support public transit.
They also challenge a claim in the ad, that without a boundary expansion all new residents would be housed in apartment buildings, because Markham still has land for traditional low-density housing.
The financial stakes in Markham, where land is expensive, are huge. The skyrocketing value of land is best illustrated by the recent sale of the 83-hectare Beckett farm, at 16th Ave. and Kennedy Rd. It lies within the urban boundary, is already marked for development and was sold last month for $100 million. It was purchased by a partnership of developers Arista Homes, Fieldgate Homes, Paradise Homes and Starlane Homes, said Rovinelli, a spokesman for the group at the time.
email received from Wismer Ratepayers 2010/01/19 Tom,

In the Wismer Area, there are a few high rise buildings scheduled to be completed by 2010. I have had an opportunity to speak with the builder from Best Homes and was given information that I was not aware of. This information was very helpful and we will be working with the builder to ensure that the Wismer community benefits from this development. I am interested in participating in a meeting in the new year. Please keep me informed.

Nirmala

Nirmala Persaud Armstrong,
Founder and President
Wismer Ratepayers Association

email sent to Sherwood-Amber Glen Ratepayers 2010/01/17 Hi Gord,
Sorry, I am just getting back to your email. There were a number of deputations by farmers both new and old as well as developers, environmentalists and others. By now you have probably read the local newspaper which was a fairly accurate account of the meeting.  Unfortunately the E&S did not capture the emotion of hearing farmers who were well beyond retirement age that are concerned that farming is no longer viable and that they won’t be able to get market value for selling their farms. Other younger generation farmers were very positive about the future of their farming operations if they weren’t put out of business by Rouge Park. 
What were your impressions?
Tom
Email sent 2010/01/15 (my response in italics) Hi Glen,

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I have received a number of requests for information and I am replying to each one. I am also working on a website www.saveourmarkham.ca which will provide information, views and an opportunity to share opinions.

I have provided answers to your questions below. I realize that it would have been important for you to have had this information prior to January 12th. Did you attend on the 12th? What were your thoughts on the meeting?

Regards,

Tom

Hello;
I am a resident of Unionville and have been following the growth and development in this area with growing concern.
I read your flyer which was delivered with the Economist today and it raised a number of questions:
1. Has the Provincial Places To Grow Act been passed into law?
I don’t have details but the law and its mandates have been in place for some time now.

2. Why would a person only place their objections with Councillors Burke and Shapero?
3. Why would I not contact Councillor Hamilton who represents my ward and any other Councillors?
By all means contact all Councillors. The two Councillors were of particular concern as they presented a proposal at the December 1st meeting that would mean all intensification in Markham would remain below Major Mackenzie resulting in a need for 300 apartment buildings in Markham over the next 20 years.

4. Who raised/presented the issues in the flyer at the last meeting?
There were several presenters from all sides. The main presentations were by Jim Robb and the two Councillors.

5. The flyer is very professional and well presented. Who funded the flyer?
I funded the flyer from my business.

6. What individuals and organizations are part of "Saveourmarkham"?
I had originally conceived that ‘Save Our Markham’ would be for lack of a better term a super ratepayers association for all of Markham and initiated correspondence in late November. Unfortunately there was very little response from ratepayers associations however I was encouraged that most of it was positive and I learned of problems in other areas that need to be addressed. At present there are only a few individuals that have put up their hands.  There are many more who have expressed support.

 I will be attending the Jan. 12th and 26th meetings along with a number of my neighbors. Your response to the above questions will help us gain knowledge of this crucial growth issue.
Thank you,
Glen Richardson

St. Catherines Standard 2010/01/13 Consumers have the power to save local agriculture

"Do we really matter? That's the question a lot of us are asking. Are we important?"
That question was raised last week by Brenda Lammens, whose terms as chair of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association ends today, during an editorial board meeting with The Standard.
It's a troubling question to ponder, but even more troubling is the answer that query may receive.
As Lammens pointed out, if fruit and vegetable agriculture in Ontario collapsed, the amount of food we import ensures the shelves at grocery stores would remain full.
Facing that reality, it's easy to excuse farmers for a bout with self-doubt.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
There are no easy answers to save a vital industry that is struggling, but a big part of the solution is really no further than your shopping list and wallet.
Consumers have the power to tell farmers that yes, they do matter and yes, they are important.
They can demand local produce; but they also have to be willing to pay for it.
Farmers appreciate the support they get at the gate or at a farmer's market. But those sales account for only a tenth of their production. The vast majority of the food they grow is sold through four major grocery retailers -- Loblaws, Sobeys, Metro and, now, Walmart.
It isn't an enviable position in which they find themselves. The four retailers, with control of 90% per cent of the market, wield a disproportionate amount of power over their suppliers.
Squeezing farmers from the other side is the government. Policies like hiking minimum wage, while well intentioned, are having a devastating effect on farms.
The grocery chains dictate the price, and the government dictates the cost of doing business. It leaves farmers little to no control over their venture. As Lammens pointed out, a coffee shop can pass the cost of a higher minimum wage on to the consumer, who will pay it. But farmers have no control over their prices, and have no choice but to absorb the increased costs of doing business.
The problem is they have little left to give. The proverbial well is running dry.
To answer Lammens' question, local farmers do matter and they are important. Ontario farmers produce the healthiest, freshest food we can get.
It's time for consumers to do their part and demand local food in their grocery stores and proper compensation for the farmers.
-- Kalvin Reid

Front page Markham Economist & Sun 2010/01/12 Two sides battle it out on Markham foodbelt

L.H. Tiffany Hsieh January 12, 2010 08:14 AM

Markham’s agricultural study and growth management strategy enjoyed a full-scale debate, but before that, two sides on the growth issue voiced their concerns on their own dime.
Tom Farrar, Boxgrove Community Association president, took out a full-page ad in Markham’s Economist & Sun newspaper, calling on residents to “stop the apartment belt”.
Mr. Farrar said without expanding Markham’s urban area outside the current settlement boundary, new residents would have to be housed in apartment buildings and the town would face road congestion, overcrowding in schools and recreational facilities, changes in property values, and the loss of community and architectural heritage.
“The population is coming, that’s mandated and it’s also necessary,” he said.
“But it’s where it’s put and what it does to the existing Markham and what Markham is, and that’s a concern to me.”
Mr. Farrar said even though he used the ad agency of TACC Construction Ltd. to create the ad, “TACC is not involved in this. The ad was paid for by me personally.”
He also claimed no association with the development industry.
Markham’s population is expected to rise to 423,000 by 2031. A staff-recommended growth plan of 60-per-cent intensification, which would add 200 more apartment buildings within the existing settlement area, was shelved by the town’s development services committee in November, as council toyed around with varying degrees of intensification — 52, 60 or 100 per cent.
The 100-per-cent no-white-belt option would see 300 additional buildings in the next 22 years by curbing expansion outside the settlement area.
Markham currently has 89 apartment buildings.
In December, a permanent foodbelt was proposed by Councillors Valerie Burke and Erin Shapero. It suggests allocating extra people to another municipality that has the capacity to accommodate growth.
Mr. Farrar called the foodbelt proposal “fictitious” albeit he said he is in favour of green space and viable farms.
“To artificially draw a line and say you could not build residential (units) above this line because it’s reserved for farmlands is quite contrary to my thinking,” he said.
“Somewhere there’s a number in there that’s acceptable, and by acceptable, I mean that it would not require the degree of apartment buildings that appear to be in the plan now.”
Gloria Marsh has a different view.
The executive director of York Region Environmental Alliance said saving the green space will not only be good for the environment but also for the economy in general.
“If we want to look at economic recovery, tourism is something, but there’s no appeal visually, it’s just houses everywhere,” she said.
In a letter to Markham council, Premier Dalton McGuinty, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Jim Watson, Minister of Agriculture and Food Leona Dombrowsky, and Minister of Natural Resources Donna Cansfield, Ms Marsh said her group is in support of the proposed foodbelt and suggested the concept of agritourism, which showcases artisanal products and farm holidays and visits.
“People think if you save the environment the economy will suffer, but that’s absolutely not true,” Ms Marsh said.
She said her group is in favour of intensification in transportation corridors.
“This business about fear mongering the public with intensification and high rises, there is a place for them right along Hwy. 7 and it could work very well,” she said.

email received 2010/01/11 Hello Tom,
I am located in Markham and have been a resident for over 30 years.  I will be at the council meeting at 7pm tomorrow if your group is meeting then.

Best Regards,

Paul
Email received from Fred Webber 2010/01/11 I understand that the ad in the Economist and Sun was run by a company run by developer Silvio DeGasperis, and is misleading. The reason for the ad is that he is fighting the move to stop development in the whitebelt and is using scare tactics regarding densification in the current built areas to achieve his goal. The Places to Grow Act does not require Markham to accept 151,000 more people, that is an estimate of future growth and could easily change depending on immigration patterns and where the newcomers choose or are allowed to reside. Also we may be able to get other municipalities, e.g. Toronto or Mississauga, where infrastructure already exists or is planned, to accept some of the numbers. Furthermore if densification is properly planned and integrated with the required infrastructure planning, especially transit, it need not detract from the quality of life we have enjoyed in Markham and want to preserve. Don’t be fooled into supporting developers who want to be able to build wherever they choose, whether or not it is good for the community.
Email received 2010/01/08 Hello;
I am a resident of Unionville and have been following the growth and development in this area with growing concern.
I read your flyer which was delivered with the Economist today and it raised a number of questions:
1. Has the Provincial Places To Grow Act been passed into law?
2. Why would a person only place their objections with Councillors Burke and Shapero? 
3. Why would I not contact Councillor Hamilton who represents my ward and any other Councillors?
4. Who raised/presented the issues in the flyer at the last meeting?
5. The flyer is very professional and well presented. Who funded the flyer?
6. What individuals and organizations are part of "Saveourmarkham"?
I will be attending the Jan. 12th and 26th meetings along with a number of my neighbors. Your response to the above questions will help us gain knowledge of this crucial growth issue.
Thank you,
Glen Richardson
Email received 2010/01/08 Thank you for the flyer. It was very informative.

Your acknowledgement that growth is inevitable is sensible with the caveat that it has to be managed properly. I also agree that Jim and Erin's focus on simply protecting our greenspaces is narrow-minded and ineffective (name an environmentalist however that actually considers all aspects of an issue!). They fail to realize that concentrating growth only in defined areas adversely impacts our greenspaces. Overly concentrated areas will generate more traffic, pollution, crime, waste that impact not just the immediate area but also surrounding areas -- problems which will eventually engulf the entire Town. I also wonder if Valerie and Erin's advocation of the 100% intensification factor is to also garner more infrastructure funding from the Province for other causes such as the Greenbelt or Transit integration plans.

My wife and I used to live in Toronto at the Yonge and Sheppard area and we moved to South Unionville back in 2003 for the very reason of avoiding the unsustainable growth that we saw around Yonge and Sheppard. In less than 5 years, even more apartment buildings and high-rise condos dominate the area without any improvements in the infrastructure around it. Some of our friends that continue to live in the area have mentioned that the situation has escalated so badly that condo owners get into arguments when they leave their underground garages during rush hour.

As such, my family and I are new residents of Markham and are part of the new wave of Markham residents. We were attracted to Markham's family-friendly nature and the convenience of having GO train service to downtown Toronto where we both work. I was also attracted with the original Markham Centre plan with the belief that a progressive area needs a vibrant but sustainable core. The changes however to the population requirements for Markham Centre is worrysome without any concrete mitigation on how the Town or Region intends to deal with the extra allocation. Coupled with the support of certain councillors for 100% intensification above the recommended 40%, are we not in danger of creating another Toronto? One can only hope that our elected officials would take the time to look at the lessons learned from our neighbours to the south.

Ivan Yao

emails to/from Sherwood-Amber Glen Ratepayers Association 2010/01/07 Hi Gord,

No it is not correct. I am preparing a reply to the email pointing out other errors as well. I did get ahead of myself as I had hoped to generate enough interest in advance to form an organization and get help with funding. The ad turned out to be very expensive and will be repeated this Saturday. I tried to stop it this morning but the Saturday paper was printed last night.

Tom


Tom,
Is the paragraph attributing the Economist ad to TACC using your name correct? I thought this was your ad and your ad alone.

Gord Walter
Sherwood Amber Glen RA

Emails to/from Thornhill Ward One Ratepayers 2010/01/06 Hi Evelin,

The short answer is that I paid for the ad. I was disappointed in the initial response to my emails to Ratepayers Associations and I jumped ahead with the ad which has brought in additional favourable response. My hope is that enough people will feel strong enough to support the cause and I will be asking for financial contributions to a not-for-profit organization. 

I am currently working on an interactive website and I will inform all when it is up and running.

Thanks,

Tom


Hi Tom,
Just received. Thank you.
How as this ad payed?
Evelin


Hi Evelin,
Here is a copy. The address and phone number is mine. 
Thanks for the interest. 
Tom

Hello Tom,
Could you provide us with the advertisement referred to in the concern residents letter.
We do not receive the Markham newspaper.
Thank you,
Evelin Ellison

email received 2010/01/03

I am very opposed to the Apartment Belt proposals in Markham and cannot believe that such a proposition is being considered. Our road infrastructure is already overburdened. Apartments greatly increase the density of the area where they are built. It is already impossible to get anywhere driving south during morning rush hour and impossible to get anywhere driving north during the evening rush hours. Adding apartments would just amplify this problem.

High density housing also lowers rather than improves the quality of life for the residents. Why can't we learn this lesson from other cities who have existing high density housing problems?

One must wonder if the developers are paying off the politicians to approve such proposals so that they can maximize profits for their land developments?

I am concerned about the high rise density apartments being built on the east side of Kennedy Road just south of Hwy. 7.

Mona Heaven
Markham

email received 2010/01/03 Hello,
I would like to receive more information and if you could please put me on your email list.

Regards,

Paul
email received 2010/01/02

I am replying to your advertisement in the January 2, 2010 Economist & Sun regarding proposals to greatly increase the density of housing in areas of Markham.

I rarely become involved in town matters, but I must express my serious concern and dismay that such a plan is being considered by the Town of Markham. The pleasant, family-friendly and safe neighbourhoods the town has strived to protect and build over decades will be severely damaged by such proposals.

The myth that high housing densities deliver a better quality of life to residents has not been supported by the reality experienced by many other towns and cities that tried this in generations past. Scarborough, Toronto, New York City, Chicago, etc. all invested heavily in these high density plans and the result has been a lower quality of life for those communities and their residents.

The primary benefits appear to accrue to landowners that can maximum the revenue per square meter of land by selling more residential units on their property. The costs accrue to the residents who face overburdened education, healthcare, recreation, transportation and other municipal service systems, increased crime and escalating taxes. Indeed, many people chose to live in Markham to avoid or flee just such communities.

Single and low density family dwellings are not an evil, nor a blight, nor otherwise more damaging than other forms of housing (as development industry funded studies have alleged), but instead are the foundation of the towns and communities we embrace.

We should not replicate the high density errors made by others in decades past within the Town of Markham.

Sincerely,

John Heaven
Markham

email received 2009/12/30 Hi Tom

I agree that there is not enough time for a united front of ratepayers and apologize for not getting back to you any sooner. We believe in growth for Markham as it is inevitable that Markham will grow. It's a small Town just waiting to grow up into a big city and with that, it will have all the problems that a city will have. But like you, we believe Markham must make responsible choices before they allow growth to happen; infrastructure needs to be in place before homes and added population arrives else it will suffocate all of Markham and change it forever.

We were interested in listening to all the views of other associations, but unfortunately do not have much time to invest in this. I was present at that full house meeting earlier this month and wrote a letter to council already. As well, I plan to be there for the 12th and 26th.

Thanks for spearheading this important issue.

Debbie Wong
President
Rouge Fairways Residents' Association
(SE corner of Markham and 14th Ave).

email sent by Tom to all ratepayer associations 2009/12/29 Hello All,
I have been contacted by a number of you either directly or by a response to previous emails. The following is a summary of my thoughts based on your input.

One thing that I will say at the outset is that the time for action is now. Our first opportunity for public input will be the January 12th meeting in Council Chambers. To that end I am proceeding with a plan that I had hoped to present at a united meeting of ratepayers but it appears that is presently not feasible.  The following are key points that must be addressed. My comments are in italics.

The provincial government has already mandated the growth rates for the Region of York including the Town of Markham at 40% intensification within existing urban areas. This is an indisputable fact that cannot be changed.

NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) is suggested by some of you as the motivation for limiting intensification. As stated the province is imposing 40% intensification. In addition the Region of York is proposing 52% intensification and the Town of Markham is proposing 60% intensification by putting clusters of apartment buildings throughout Markham. Intensification as it is proposed will affect all of us. Our schools, parks, community centres and roads will bear the brunt of these inflated numbers. One can only imagine the strain on local residents if all of the new growth in Markham (an additional 151,000 new residents) is located within our existing neighbourhoods, as is being proposed by some councillors. This would be 100% intensification and there is no need for it. 

The Agricultural Assessment Study recommended that new policies be put in place within the protected Greenbelt and to control the interface between urban growth and farmland. The study has detailed many of the problems farmers are experiencing. Many of these problems can be alleviated by having larger farming communities to the north where reasonable boundaries between rural and urban can be established and controlled. The Agricultural Assessment Study that will be discussed on the 12th acknowledges that there is room for both growth and farming in Markham. 

Some of you have already been struggling with high-rise apartment buildings being planned or built in your area. You understand that the current infrastructure cannot accommodate the intensification and in particular are concerned with what it will do to traffic congestion on your streets.

There are solutions:

1.Press council to stay within the provincially mandated growth of 40%. Phone, write and attend meetings on January 12th and January 26th to voice your opinion.
2.Don’t accept land use solutions that will force people into apartment buildings rather than having a home.
3.Remember the qualities that made Markham the place for you to call home and ensure that future home owners will enjoy the same amenities.
4.Press council to stay within the provincially mandated growth of 40%. Phone, write and attend meetings on January 12th and January 26th (now February 16th) to voice your opinion.
5.Don’t accept land use solutions that will force people into apartment buildings rather than having a home.
6.Remember the qualities that made Markham the place for you to call home and ensure that future home owners will enjoy the same amenities.
Support responsible growth in Markham. Act now to ‘Save Our Markham’.

Tom

Email received 2009/12/22 As I said in my previous email, I want to help Markham encourage the province and the federal governments to rethink how the increased numbers will/should be handled at the local levels. As of now, it seems that the numbers are simply being allocated to local regions and not being questioned by most, although I understand that some municipalities are resisting. Rather than “pushing back” or “defying “the province, the approach should be to help them come up with better ways to deal with the numbers, including how many, in what time frame and where they should locate, having regard to, not only what the newcomers want, but also what is in the best interests of the existing communities.

We also see some evidence of NIMBYism, but agree that it is to be avoided, since it is rarely effective. However, good planning should involve serious local input, and there does not appear to be enough of that. If we band together and take reasonable positions, we should be heard, especially if we get our local elected officials on board. They should be receptive since we will be making their jobs easier in dealing with senior levels of government.


Fred Webber, German Mills Ratepayers

email sent by Tom in reply to all ratepayers associations 2009/12/22 As president of the Box Grove Ratepayers for the past 19 years I have led the fight to save the existing Box Grove neighbourhood while we were being impacted by development on all sides. The results are that Box Grove continues to be a community where the residents, both old and new are proud to call home.

On December 16th I sent an email to all of you expressing my concerns for the future of all of our Markham neighbourhoods with the planned intensification bringing apartment building complexes throughout Markham. Apartments intensify populations in a concentrated area creating an overload on parks, schools, recreation facilities and roads. We need to work hard to control runaway intensification in our neighbourhoods.

Only six associations responded to my first email. This is a busy time of the year but please take a few moments to respond with your thoughts.

NOW IS THE TIME TO TAKE ACTION!

Tom

email received 2009/12/22 Tom:

It certainly is a difficult time of year to engage anyone in other than Holiday activities.

However your email is also timely. We at the Unionville Ratepayers Association also want to deal with the question of Growth Management and its impacts on our community. We are sensitive to the arguments on all sides of the issue.

We have created a Committee chaired by Peter Miasek to study the matter and make recommendations to our members. They have had two meetings already and have a plan to get our organization "meaningfully informed" so that we can then take a position (if we choose) and then make a deputation to Council.

Some of the action items the Committee has identified are:

1. approach other ratepayer organizations to see if we can benefit from some joint efforts (hence the timeliness of your email)

2. encourage our members to participate in the Town's public consultation planned for January 25.

3. organize some follow-up meetings/presentations to help our members  appreciate some of the different perspectives on the issue.

4. ensure that Council does not make a decision before our process is complete (end of February)

So in conclusion, I propose the following to all the Ratepayer Groups:

A. in January we hold an all-ratepayer group meeting to discuss working together. Since you made the first approach, Tom, I suggest you be the coordinator. I am happy to look after arranging a meeting facility and any associated logistics.

B. that you share the thoughts of those who have already responded with me.

C. That you and others avoid making your ideas and positions known at this time. We are doing that until we have become better informed. By leading with your opinions you may discourage participation by those who disagree. It is better for us to meet and talk first. Let us find a good process for a good decision.

D. We are worried about the timing (see point 4 above). So at a minimum would like to see a united front to Council on that one item.

I hope we can get something going.

Look forward to hearing back.

Harry Eaglesham

President
Unionville Ratepayers Association
email received 2009/12/22 Tom,
I appreciate your concerns, understand them and sympathize about the fear of intensification, but in my mind the continued urban sprawl is also unacceptable. I live on John Street in old Thornhill. I have over 12,000 cars go by my home every day. We have fought for years to try and reduce the high volume on John Street. This sounds unbelievable but it is true. The intensification proposed at Yonge and Steeles and in the Langstaff area will likely increase this number. The real issue here is how we get people out of cars and into public transportation. It would seem that intensification is the only way that governments can afford to improve our transit systems. (They could also stop spending crazy dollars, (millions), in unnecessary land expropriations, (eg. John st. and Don Mills, where they are still trying to add one acre of land to a 100 acre park, through a very expensive expropriation process which has been going on for years costing us the taxpayer millions of dollars). In my opinion our multi level governmental systems have failed miserably  with respect to public transportation. The subway should have been to Newmarket by now. They claim the environmental assessments take a long time and are required. In the mean time we are filling the air we breathe with more exhaust fumes from the ever increasing amount of cars on the road.
In New York City the subway is $2.00. People use it. Here with the cost of parking and the transit ticket price people still feel it is better to drive their car. If our decision makers were serious about public transportation it would be a very minimal cost or it would be free. This may be unrealistic but I maintain that the current situation of ever expanding urban sprawl and the continued level of grid lock is also unacceptable.
The answer lies in the live, work, play concepts like Langstaff. Some may not like the intensification especially when it is in the proximity of your existing community, but I really see no other solution being tabled.
To simply object to intensification without an alternative is not an answer.

Best Regards To All

David Jordon
President
Thornhill Conservation District Ratepayers Association, (TCDRA)
email received 2009/12/22 We would like to meet at some point but unfortunately cannot during the holidays. If you would like to talk further, we can set up a time perhaps in the new year?

Thanks,
Meg Stokes
President
Angus Glen Ratepayers
email received 2009/12/22 Here in German Mills (Steeles and Don Mills area) we have been fighting a proposed redevelopment of our small local plaza (17acres). The various proposals have all included 6-8 highrise condos (25-32 stories) even though the site is not on the Towns plans for densification. As far as I can tell there are no buildings higher than 20 stories anywhere in the Town. The developer doesn’t care about the community or what makes sense from the Town’s own planning perspective, and knows that he can go to the OMB where he will have a good chance of at least partial success. I think the ratepayers groups need to work together to get the province to abolish or fix the OMB and get planning control back to our local planners, subject to provincial legislation.

I was one of the speakers at the Dec. 1st meeting but there wasn’t enough time to properly make my point. I was trying to question the projected numbers, which are being treated as if they are inevitable.
There needs to be better bottom-up planning for where the people can be accommodated and in what time frames, so that local communities are not subjected to unreasonable densification and can properly plan and fund the necessary infrastructure. We should also be able to trade the “allocated” numbers with other areas which may want or be able to accommodate greater numbers than they have been allocated.

We also need to convince the senior levels of government that they need to cooperate with each other and especially with local governments, so that such “trivial” matters as infrastructure (transit, sewers etc) funding, planning and execution take place so that the population and employment projections can be accommodated. We need to help our local planners and elected officials fight back against the provincial and federal governments which are simply downloading population projections and telling our local officials to figure out how to deal with them no matter how unreasonable or impossible that may be.

A meeting of various ratepayers groups is something I have also thought about. If you decide to go ahead, please contact our VP, Marsha Winton who will attend if possible.Fred Webber , German Mills Ratepayers

email received 2009/12/22 I am president of the German Mills Residents Association, just east of you. One of the issues that our transit planners are not paying enough attention to is parking where public transit is being implemented. The residential areas in Markham are too spread out to expect most people to walk to public transit. This is different from the city core. If they want people to use public transit, they must provide adequate, cheap, convenient parking and drop-off facilities along with the reasonably priced transit.
email received 2009/12/22 Hi Tom,

I think ratepayer groups are a very important part of the process. However, I'm concerned that NIMBYism will rule, especially in a group meeting where the passionately vocal representatives drown out any opinions other than their own.

At the moment, our group (OMVR) only knows that the province has "mandated" growth and that certain municipalities have been chosen, for some criteria or other, to receive this growth. We don't know how hard and fast the province's stance is. We don't know what penalties the Region would incur if they defied the Province, not what would happen to Markham if it did so. What leeway does the Town have?

While I might personally want every farm and every historic community preserved exactly as is, I don't know if that's possible or even desirable for the community as a whole. My group certainly doesn't have the answers, and from what I've read from the other groups so far, neither does anyone else.

If the ratepayers groups got together to research the reality of the situation, so that each group had real data upon which to take an educated stand, that would be great. If they're getting together just to form a much bigger NIMBY organization, we'll take a pass on participating.

Keith Thirgood
President, OMVR (Old Markham Village Ratepayers)

email received 2009/12/17

Tom,

Your e-mail was directed to me. Please note that in the Wismer Community we are experiencing intensification. The Wismer Ratepayers Association met with the Builder-Best Homes. We were satisfied with the information provided to us at that meeting and have agreed that a meeting (Developer/Residents/Town of Markahm) should be held soon in the Wismer Community to address other questions and clarify some of the issues raised by the Wismer residents.

Please keep me posted with respect to any meeting you may have.

Nirmala Nirmala Persaud Armstrong
President/Founder
Wismer Ratepayers Association

email received 2009/12/17 Tom,
On behalf of the Sherwood Amberglen Ratepayers we would be happy to attend any meeting you might convene on this issue. The question is..where and when?

Gord Walter
V-P SARA

email received 2009/12/17 Hi Tom

I'd like to know what you consider "responsible growth".
If Markham does not accommodate the projected population growth who will? If all you are saying is do it someplace else then you're just a NIMBY. That is what everybody says and that is why the Province makes the growth targets mandatory.
If you are not in favour of intensification then you support urban sprawl and the excessive destruction of farmland and natural areas.
You are also eliminating public transit as a viable option and supporting the increased use of private vehicles and the associated pollution which comes from them.
Will you stand up publicly and say that?
Or do you have a solution which will address these?

Glenn
email received 2009/12/16 thanks Tom. It is my opinion that Markham needs to fight the numbers. they are completely unrealistic. It will mean traffic gridlock.

Lorne
email received 2009/12/16

Hello Tom:

We, at the Unionville Ratepayers, are doing some head scratching as to how to best deal with all sides of the issue. We have no official position at this time. We have a committee set up to make recommendations to our membership. It is headed by Peter Miasek who I have copied on this reply.

Timing is a problem this time of the year. We are struggling to deal with this and other issues. We are also concerned about the timing of the Town processes to make a final decision.

So all I can suggest for now is that you keep us posted and we will do likewise.

Where do you live? Are you involved with a Ratepayer Group?

regards

Harry Eaglesham
President
Unionville Ratepayers Association

email sent by Tom in reply to Ken Rahl of Legacy Associations 2009/12/16 I am glad to hear from you as I know that your group was successful in stopping the high density that was planned for the north end of Legacy so your input will be helpful. As a leader I have learned to follow so I would like to get a consensus from an interested group of people as to what should be done. Yes, I do have my own ideas and I will share them over the next few days.

Tom

email sent by Tom in reply to Harry Eaglesham of Unionville Associations 2009/12/16 I have been the, sometimes reluctant, president of the Box Grove Community Association (ratepayers) for the past 19 years. In that role I have been before council on many occasions fighting development with the end result of getting some improvements to our area. It is my understanding that there are a number of pockets of proposed high-rise apartments including in Cornell to the north of us and Kennedy/16th north of you. I am not going into this as president of Box Grove ratepayers as this issue is bigger than just my neighbourhood.

I will keep you informed and I have added Peter to my email list.

Tom

Toronto Sun 2009/12/14 The working, family farm is on its last legs in the GTA
By GLEN STONE, GUEST COLUMNIST
City folks seem to find something romantic and magical about farms. And, why not? It's the way most of us used to live up until our grandparents' day -- closer to animals and nature than our modern lifestyles allow or require.
Even when I was a kid (when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and the Leafs won Stanley Cups), you could still find working farms inside the city limits, like E.P. Taylor's horse farm at York Mills and Leslie.
Today, the exploding population of the GTA has gobbled up vast tracts of former farmland. The 905 is more urban and suburban than rural.
So, I was not the only one surprised this month when a Markham town committee reported that nearly half of Markham, some 41%, is still designated as farmland. Add in the "white belt" buffer zones around the greenbelt areas, and you're up to 52%.
That doesn't mean Markhamites are wearing straw hats or spend their Saturday nights tipping sleeping cows over (don't knock it till you try it). In fact, there are few farms left and they're disappearing fast.
The last town survey, in 2006, found there were only 64 farms remaining in Markham and that was down from 85 in 2001. At that rate, the last barn door will close in about a dozen years.
Most of the so-called farmland is now in the hands of developers, hoping to satisfy the land-hungry masses moving further and further north from Steeles Ave.
The agricultural zoning appears to be a left-over from a disappearing era; they're not old farms, they're unborn housing developments.
That's an age-old story in the 905, but the report by the development services committee has kick-started a major debate at Markham Council.
Some councillors, like Erin Shapero and Valerie Burke, want to see more protection for farmland and the white belt buffer zones. Others, like Mayor Joe Frank Scarpitti and Coun. Joe Virgilio, say the writing is on the wall and you can't keep farms alive just for the sake of it.
With the usual gang of "local food" and environmental advocates joining in, it looks like we'll get to watch lots of entertaining and passionate fireworks at council meetings.
But, really, it's inevitable. We've all seen this movie before and you know how it ends -- when money talks, farmers walk. Hard to turn down a jillion dollars an acre when you can use it to retire or move a bit further from the growth bubble and start again.
It's also hard for a council to turn up its nose at the satchels of cash and jobs that new development brings to the local economy.
And peeping from behind the curtains in back is Premier Dalton McGuinty. His government is enforcing its "Growth Plan" that says Markham will have to accommodate its share of new residents and white belts will be among the future growth areas.
So, the "save the farms" brigade is fighting a rearguard action against inexorable forces. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that they can't win this war.
But maybe by fighting to keep most of the land unspoiled they will help preserve at least some of it. And that's something future city folks just might appreciate.
-- Stone lives in Thornhill and at www.GhostWriterInTheSky.ca
Letter published in the Markham Economist and Sun 1009/12/05 The Editor,
Markham Economist and Sun

Re: Does Markham Need ‘Foodbelt’? Saturday November 28th, 2009.

In response to L. H. Tiffany Hsieh’s front page story I attended Tuesday evening’s council meeting. I have been to many meetings before but this one was very unusual for a few reasons. First, as required by Provincial Policy both the Region of York and the Town of Markham has been studying, for months if not years, how they can best comply with the Provincial Growth Plan. The province has directed that they accommodate growth and to that end their regional and town staff have been studying the best way to do it. Simply rejecting growth and the provincial directive is not a viable option. Where was Jim Robb during all this time and why did he show up at the last minute with his new plan? The second unusual thing that I saw was a registration table in the Great Hall. The third unusual thing was the large number of people that crowded into council chambers.  It now appears it was supporters of Jim Robb, most of them from Toronto, here to applaud his 15 minute dialogue and boo and cat call opposing opinions. To his credit Mayor Scarpitti immediately redressed the negative responses as being unacceptable. 

Mr. Robb, being single minded, focused on his objectives rather than the reality of what Markham Council must do to sustain our Town. In his presentation he used facts, near facts and contrived facts. He would rather see people living in apartments than in homes with their own piece of the green that he says he wants to save.

Reality is that Markham is going to grow and Council and Staff will have to create a plan to accommodate that growth in keeping with what Markham is, a home where people will be proud to live.

Save our Markham!

Tom Farrar

email sent by Tom to all Markham Ratepayer Associations 2009/11/30 Hello Fellow Ratepayers Associations

There is an issue before us that needs our immediate attention.  The growth plan for the next 20 years that is going before Council at tomorrow evening’s meeting includes an increase in Markham to a total of 300 apartment buildings by the year 2031. I have chosen to live in Markham to get away from the crime that is all too prevalent in Toronto’s high density areas.

Please attend Council on Tuesday evening to see for yourself the proposed plan to put apartment buildings into many of our neighbourhoods. I will be there and if you or your representative cannot attend please pass on to me any comments that you may have.

I plan to form a group of like-minded concerned citizens to ‘Save Our Markham’.

Yours truly,

Tom

email sent by Tom to all Markham Ratepayer Associations 2009/11/30 Mayor and Council,

I plan to speak to Council on December 1st against the proposal to bring the total number of apartment buildings in Markham to 300 by 2031.

Like many residents of Markham I moved here to get away from the problems of living in Toronto such as drug dealing gangs and the crimes they committed. There is strong evidence that these gangs thrive in areas where there is high density living conditions.  I don’t want Toronto type crime in Markham and I will fight to keep it out.

I have stood before Council on many occasions over the past 19 years and while I have not always been successful with my efforts I was always treated with respect and found most decisions to be reasonable. As this plan will dramatically change my Markham I intend to be there at every opportunity to express my opposition and the opposition of like minded residents of Markham.

Regards,

Tom