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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 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).

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

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

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

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

Tom

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

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