Tyson Lake Ontario Killarney, Ontario

Killarney Unfair TAXATION

Ward 2 French River Presentation - Brilliant

Ward structure in Killarney is indefensible
since it does not treat the entire community fairly

 

 

Submission to
Municipality of Killarney
Ad Hoc Committee
Review of Ward Structure/Council Representation
Public Input Meeting
Saturday June 1, 2013-05-29

Lana Calder
Unsurveyed PCL 5383 NS Island KG 7076 GEO Bay
Green Island, Bustard Island
Ward 2, Municipality of Killarney

Hello, my name is Lana Calder and my family has owned property in the Bustard Island for the last 50 years. The Bustard Islands are located within the municipality of Killarney, Ward 2. As a Ward 2 ratepayer I have the same right to be represented at council as any resident of the village of Killarney and yet I am denied voter parity under the current ward system.
The existing ward system is perpetuating area politics and comments such as the following made by council & staff demonstrate this:
 “we don’t want to be taken in by another municipality”
 “we do not want to be controlled by Southern Ontario and our permanent residents in the village and from the lower area do not want it either”
 “This is where I choose to live and for you to expect me or any other Killarney Villager to give up and/or not have what every other resident in other communities in Ontario has or is privy to --- is completely ridiculous. I permanently reside here and I expect to have street lights, use of a community centre if I so wish, garbage pick-up etc. This is my permanent home, if I was fortunate enough to have a cottage my expectations would be different as it is not my permanent residence.” OR in other words….we are entitled to our entitlements!
We are all residents of the municipality of Killarney and the residents of the village are not entitled under any law to have privilege over other land owners within the municipality. Additionally the residents of Killarney Village should not expect to enjoy benefits which they cannot pay for themselves. Ward 2 was not amalgamated into the municipality of Killarney simply to ensure that the village of Killarney could continue to maintain a level of amenities and services which they could no longer afford themselves! Ward 2 is not a cash cow meant to subsidize jobs for residents of the village! It does not matter what you “had” before, it matters what you can afford today! The days of senior levels of government financing municipal level facilities is long gone and Ward 2 was not amalgamated into Killarney to replace funds that the village used to receive from the province!

I would like to introduce the following submission on behalf of the Ward 2 Ratepayers Association. We have consulted with Robert Williams, a public affairs consultant and expert on municipal government and electoral systems.
Mr. Williams was an expert witness in the Kearney OMB hearing, which I understand the members of the Ad Hoc Committee are familiar with.
At our request, Mr. Williams has reviewed Killarney’s existing municipal ward structure and council representation and was so appalled that he agreed to provide a written submission at no cost.
To summarize Mr. Williams conclusions, the present distribution of electors in Ward 2 is;
1) inequitable and constitutes uneven and unfair representation
2) a flagrant violation of the basic premise of representative democracy in Canada
3) Ward 1 electors are overrepresented in a transparently discriminatory arrangement that multiplies Ward 1 individual voices by 3 fold.
Mr. Williams endorses the Ward 2 Ratepayers assertion that an at-large system would be both plausible and beneficial for Killarney. He emphasises that:
“Inequities in our voting systems are not to be accepted merely because of historical precedent and historical anomalies and abuses CANNOT be used to justify continued anomalies and abuses!”
His recommendation is that the Ad Hoc Committee should put their decision beyond reproach by endorsing a neutral process that places the community’s interest at the forefront and the 3 alternatives available to accomplish this are:
1) accept the Ontario Municipal Boards offer to mediate
2) allow the Ward 2 petition to proceed to an Ontario Municipal Board hearing
3) engage a neutral 3rd party to evaluate alternatives.
Mr. Williams’ concludes that the present ward structure in Killarney is indefensible since it does not treat the entire community fairly and that local acceptance of a system that has been flawed from the outset should not trump basic democratic principles related to representation in Canada.

The Ward 2 Ratepayers Association will NOT and CAN NOT accept any recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee besides a recommendation to adopt an at-large system.
The Ad Hoc Committee lacks legitimacy because it does not include ANY representative of the interests of Ward 2 – not even the 1 elected Ward 2 councillor!
Whether the mayor purposefully designed the composition of the committee to ensure that EVERY member of the committee would decide in favour of retaining the current system or not, the fact is that EVERY member of the committee has a vested interest in the current ward system remaining unchanged!

In conclusion, I propose that the only acceptable result of this process is for the Ad Hoc Committee to determine that the current municipal structure violates the right of Ward 2 to voter parity, which is fundamental right in a democracy, and therefore they MUST recommend the following resolution be put to a council vote:

Be it resolved that the Ad Hoc Committee recommends to council that the present electoral wards system be replace with an at- large electoral system in the Municipality of Killarney.