Robert Routledge, a member of the Guelph Mercury’s Community Editorial Board, writes that a student complex at the south-east corner of Stone and Gordon, “creates a win-win-win-win-lose-lose situation for most residents in the city’s south end.”

Perhaps.

The OMB decision and probable development by Abode will have knock’em sock’em winners and losers. But the development’s deeper influence and impact is less clear for now. It will likely have implications for the broader community with subtleties for lives that don’t fit well into net win or lose columns. Time will tell how those stories will read. For now, the win and lose columns can be reduced to a single word: perhaps.

Perhaps. Regarding Mr. Routledge’s #1 win, landlords, the least involved landlords, the worst of the absentee landlords in those neighbourhoods will continue to rent and will continue to be uninvolved. Only, perhaps they’ll have to charge less — which I’m not convinced will be the case — which doesn’t play well into whatever motivations they previously had to maintain their properties. Perhaps. Or maybe they’ll rent out more to non-students. Hmm.

#2 win: Is it overstated? No doubt, it will be a boom for existing businesses in the immediate vicinity. (So, the commercial rent will likely jump.) The community may evolve in a way that impacts on some of the retail mix. Perhaps it’s time for the U of G’s student’s union, the CSA, or the U of G to reinvest and reclaim some bar market share.

#3 win: Yes, there will be more private-sector options for those students who can afford them. For those who can’t, it’s not clear to me that their housing situations will improve. And how will this impact on “public” housing, provided through the U of G? Will more investments need to be made by the U of G into their existing residences? Will it impact on-compass housing rent rates?

#4 win: Again, is it overstated? Will the students be more or less inclined to think about their water use and the garbage they produce, living in those buildings? This “win” also glosses over the whole issue of removing a large building, and the resources to build what is being contemplated.

#1 loss: Here we get into the shortcomings of applying columns of winners and losers — it suggests a win can be adequately weighed against a loss, one for one, and has the effect of blunting the magnitude of both. In this case, this “loss” is likely understated. Very much so.

#2 loss: Perhaps.

In sum, it’s unrealistic to expect any one measure, even as significant as this one with Abode, to solve all that is not working when it comes to off-campus housing in Wards 5 and 6.

Best to expect less about this development, save the unintended consequences from it.

Perhaps the most likely winners in all of this will be the trades who will build and then maintain these buildings — and, in keeping with our way of doing things, long after the dust settles (again) — there will be a lot to fix.

(Who wrote these?)

Today, turning the curve is introducing a new word to Canadian political discourse — you’ve seen it here first: Addick.

Addick: (Noun) A political ad from a Prime Minister (or one of his or her lackeys) suggesting a political opponent is not fit to be Prime Minister in an ironically not so prime-ministerial kind of way, causing said Prime Minister to appear insecure and desperate and on par with their narrative caricature of their opponent, thereby becoming tiresome among voters, causing the same said Prime Minister to lose voter support to their opponent; compare with: jerk-fatigue. [Can be applied to Premiers, as required.]

Image credit: Globe and Mail, August 23, 2012

Just picking up on the buzz here and here about Guelph’s top public official,  CAO Ann Pappert deciding to move to Guelph. I can only say how incensed I am to learn that CAO Pappert has a $20K incentive in her contract to move here.

The image, left, is from a Globe and Mail discussion about the merits of a $20K guaranteed annual income for poverty-stricken Canadians.

It puts things into perspective, doesn’t it?

Staff, even top staff, can live where they want. Of course, they also have to own their choice in terms of how the community responds to it. It’s their call, and it’s their good judgement on the line — it’s not Council’s responsibility to ensure they exercise it in this regard. If good judgement dictates to them that it’s best to live in the community they’re hired to serve, fantastic — but are we seriously paying top staff — effectively enabling them  — to exercise their own good judgement in a way they would have not otherwise?

I guess that’s how it is for some. There’s an expectation to get paid. A lot. To move. It may be business as usual in some circles. For most of us, it’s just disrespectful.

Scott Tracey of the Guelph Mercury reported:

By moving to Guelph within 18 months of signing her contract, Pappert qualifies to claim up to $20,000 in moving expenses, though she has not yet done so.

She said that clause – which is common for corporations recruiting senior administrators – “was part of the negotiation” when she took the job.

Mayor Karen Farbridge wrote in an email recently having the CAO live in Guelph “is important to council.

“As an employer, this is not something we can require, but it is something we can incent,” Farbridge wrote. “That is what we did and we are very pleased to welcome Ann to Guelph.”

Pappert acknowledged there are pitfalls to living in the community where one holds such a high-profile position. Shopping trips take a lot longer, for example, “because people are always stopping me to talk about something.”

So, to recap: “We” are “very pleased” that the CAO chose to move to the city she runs?

“Very pleased” — really?? And at a possible cost of $20K? That is a slap in the face to Guelph taxpayers.

Talk about being out of touch with the realities of the people you’re (supposed to be) serving.

Well, if you happen to see Ms. Pappert when you’re out doing your errands, be sure to welcome her to the community, because that’s who we are (though she may prefer you giving her some space)… only, it’s pompous-ridiculous that we agreed to pay her $20K to discover that.

The applications, (which are listed as Adobe (sic) Varsity Living in the City’s latest Litigation Status Report, pg. 411) refer to 716 Gordon Street Guelph, regarding Abode’s applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit proposed student housing.

Check out this thread of banter on 59 Carden St. and some background links, with this from the Guelph Mercury’s Rob O’Flanagan and this from the Mercury’s Vik Kirsch, and this and this and this from the Mercury’s Scott Tracey.

In grabbing a link to Scott Tracey’s reporting on this for you, I was reminded Scott had included script from the “Bad Idea Jeans” Saturday Night Live bit in his column about this proposal.

Kinda weird, maybe even in a Shakespearean kind of way when you also consider the weather we’ve had this Spring. So, I’m guessing City Hall is OK with waiting for the Board’s decision on this one.

Bad Idea Jeans and Long White Beards may yet prove to be omens regarding these applications.

**Or, “It’s actually about getting your data, stupid (not that I think you’re stupid).”

Given the community’s response to those aspects of the City of Guelph’s draft public nuisance by-law, and concerns about how they could impact on civil liberties if enforced, I admit there seems to be for me a peculiar inconsistency on the part of some regarding their comfort with… well, let’s agree to call it data mining.

I’m guessing the complacency around this issue comes into play because those same people know data helps to win elections, and locally, they’re actually OK push come to shove with the current powers-that-be having it. But they may want to reflect on their assumptions about the merits of accepting any administration having the ability to troll around social media. (You may recall my previous posts on this issue.) Presumably, local trolling is OK, while other involvement, not so much. Maybe for some, it’s really a matter of who’s doing it.

I suggest to them that there is a broader theme of intrusiveness at work into our lives, civic and otherwise locally, aimed at maintaining a preferred status quo.

Some call it… engagement, regrettably.

To pull out a quote from it:

Of course we all care about our groundwater. And that is what the discussion is now supposed to be about, only, it’s not. It’s about maintaining a pet program. Not asking if the assumptions about it hold true.

If you are against the toilet rebate you are against conservation. And against evidence-based policies.

And if you don’t support the program, you don’t understand how it will impact lower-income individuals and families — no data there, but that doesn’t matter — and if you question it, you are someone who thinks lower-income individuals and families don’t care about the environment.

It seemed as though certain council members were arguing that if [you] were are against the proposed public nuisance by-law, you were against additional measures in addressing the partying that is especially disruptive in Wards 5 and 6. And that to say partying is especially disruptive in Wards 5 and 6 was an act of courage. (Really?) And for some, yes, nuisance by-laws are largely unnecessary, as there are sufficient existing ways to deal with the issues.

I’m sure most of us would agree that dissent in opinion does not make one a bully.

It’s just curious the way the notion of courage is thrown around, depending on the political expediency of whether the minority opinion is to be defended against the will of the majority or is something to be constrained. In other words, some days the minority opinion comes to us thanks to the actions of an arrogant few, picking up from Mayor Farbridge’s recent blog on it, some days it’s the very same people who also… get you re-elected.

That’s curious, to be sure.

So, possibly, the bully isn’t the dissenting voice, it’s the one telling everyone when you are right and when you are wrong, depending on what works best for them (politically), expecting everyone to fall into line. And more, the bully, or the ringleader if you like, decides from one day to the next and from one issue to the next if you are a good guy… or public enemy number one.

Regrettably, the bully invariably wins… because who wants to be the bad guy, right?

So, who today is doing the dirty work? And tomorrow? Does it really matter?

Perhaps it’s now just part of the show.

And that may well be the most enduring legacy of all.

I was even able to find something to help make the point (left).

During Council’s consideration of the We Need It But We Won’t Use Most Of It Nuisance By-law, the F-word — “facism” — was used on two occasions, once by a delegate, once by a councillor.

Notwithstanding comments from councillors regarding the need for a response to nuisance parties in the city and especially to provide additional measures for by-law enforcement of parties run-amok in Wards 5 and 6, and all of the mention of courage for speaking to this need, it just doesn’t square with some of the provisions of the by-law as presented to Council.

Less does it square with aspects of the by-law as it was first crafted by staff.

But good can come from an experience such as this, though it would be reckless to suggest that good is ever inevitable. It allowed for push-back from the community and it allowed council to distinguish itself from staff, which is healthy for local government. And in the public’s rejection of particularly problematic and embarrassing aspects of the by-law, the community was also pushed into considering its notions of Guelph — confirming that if it needed a workable approach to dealing with nuisance parties, it also valued freedom, not Big Brother micromanagement.

Which of course, deserves further reflection by all involved, least of all by staff.

Update: Be sure to catch the column by the Guelph Mercury’s Scott Tracey regarding council’s reaction to the proposed by-law.

(Which, from the start, is where I said it should have stayed, until it was teased apart.)

Then, reveal that you perhaps(?!) didn’t understand what you’ve just heard from the delegations speaking against it.

More comment to follow.