By Mark Schadenberg
Social media rules the day
in 2014, but who will be the Group Of Seven that will earn a chance to
rule Woodstock for the next four years.
I will make no suggestions
on who to vote for, but just comment on how terrific it was to see
that a Facebook group could organize a successful meet-and-greet
social gathering held yesterday at the Woodstock Fairgrounds.
Terrific idea as the mainstream media promoted the informal meeting
as well.The actual debate for the 3 different positions available will be Monday, Oct. 6 at 7 p.m. at Goff Hall at the community complex. If you want a seat, get there early. If you want a seat at the city council horseshoe, be prepared – do your homework.
I'm baffled as to why the
date for this debate only became public last week. With a fixed
election date, the formal debate should have been scheduled several
months ago.
Three candidates are vying
for the position of mayor and all 3 know the in-and-outs of
campaigning. Door knocking and getting inside the foyer of people's
homes (face-to-face contact) to ask about and discuss the issues and
concerns.
The trio hoping to chair
city council meetings for the next term are incumbant Pat Sobeski,
former mayor Michael Harding, and the 2006 runner-up (to Harding) in
the polls Trevor Birtch. Should be an interesting result to track.
There are also 6 running
for just 2 city-county seats – Deb Tait and Sandra Talbot hope to
return, Bill Bes and Paul Plant hope to move up from city-only, Dave
Nadalin desires to return to a position on council, and Christina
Atkinson is the only new name.
For city-only
representation there are 11 competing for 4 jobs. Jim Northcott and
Ron Fraser have earned the right to be labelled incumbents, while
Connie Lauder and Ross Gerrie are campaigning to return to city hall
after losing in the last election. The 7 new names of hopefuls are
(alphabetically): Jerry Acchione, Jonnathan Brownlee, Owen Farrell,
Laurie Fraser, Steven Gilbert, Todd Poetter and Shawn Shapton.
I love our Woodstock
system, by the way, where you can vote for as many as 7 people.
I dislike the London
format, for example, where you can vote for mayor and for 1 person in
the ward you reside in. Even if a ward system were mandated by the
provincial government's 'municipal act' (and it's not) it's silly as
there are simply way too many wards in London. Perhaps their
numbering mathematics should be to vote for up to 4 people and have
just 4 wards (defined districts with their specific needs and concerns). I want a more complete say in who is operating my city
and that can not happen when you are only resposible for just 2 of 15
seats.
In Woodstock, the math can
work the opposite way though. After reading the brochures and
watching the debate, if you can only create a top 3 list for the 4
city-only seats – only vote for 3 people. Remember there is no
weighting system for your vote as your top priority person receives
the same vote as the 4th person you might be voting for
just because you are permitted that number of 'X' marks. Further, if
there is simply 1 person you truly like on the long list of 11 –
vote for only that person.
The same can be said for
the 2 city-county perches. It's quite a group of a half dozen vying
for just 2 seats, so to properly assist your best choice, maybe vote
for just that particular person.
Here's one more thought on
the math using a hypothetical case.
I know of one ward in the
townships of Oxford in particular where 3 are combating 2 spots. If
your desire is to truly promote Candidate-A, why would you then also
vote for either of the other 2 also?
I was going to include in
this post, the final results from both 2006 and 2010 elections but
instead did not want to sway any thoughts due to what happened in
'ancient-and-medievel' history. People change and issues change as the sand runs through the hourglass.
The Woodstock issues are
numerous – selling the hydro utility, full public disclosure and a
need for public meetings on topics such as selling the hydro utility,
Woodall Farm park (the proposed ball diamond complex is a must, and
yes I do add that in many blogs), current structure of the fire
department, the cost of the police force, public transit is always
debated, promoting the Downtown core, (maximizing the dollars and
ideas in the) divesting of brownfield properties including the old
Thomas Bus location, approving new subdivisions and their character
without deviating from the Provincial Policy Statement about
intensification, and the annexation of more lands to expand
boundaries and industrial inventory property and the costs associated with same. Also, there is a
recreational needs assessment study underway with consultants talking
to citizens and user groups about facilities and trends, covering a
pool (or an uncovered new outdoor pool) to replace Lions, along with
more trails, splash pads, basketball courts, and the long-term vision of (Erastus) Burgess Park.
How will the new Group of
Seven deal with the arts and other similar venues – gallery,
museum, market theatre, and library?
The pendulum is always
swaying when a municipality applies for upper-tier grants (and
funding) for anything from bridges and roads, possible public housing
projects (geared-to-income and retirement homes), a new arena (to
replace Civic Centre), or possibly the arrival of the University of
Ottawa or an expanded Fanshawe College.
In the next 4 years, has
the time now arrived to shuffle some of the county duties versus the
city responsibilities, with matters including road maintenance of
streets inside Woodstock which are deemed to be county thoroughfares
(i.e.: Parkinson and Devonshire)? Does Woodstock pay too much into
the county coffers? One method of reducing household taxes in
Woodstock is to lower the city's contribution to the county.
The county – in theory –
competes with free entreprise as Oxford operates retirement homes.
How does the Woodingford system work in all areas from management, to
staffing, to landscaping ? Can all 3 be sold?
The list goes on and on.
Be sure to vote on Oct. 27
LINK:
Mark
Schadenberg, Sales
Representative
Senior
Real Estate Specialist (SRES designation)
Royal
LePage Triland Realty
757
Dundas St, Woodstock
(519)
537-1553, cell or text
Email:
mschadenberg@rogers.com
Twitter:
markroyallepage
Facebook:
Mark Schadenberg, Royal LePage Triland
Discussion
. . . Direction . . . Determination . . . Destination
No comments:
Post a Comment