Citizen anger is the dominating force in the 2010 Election. In Ward 16 the anger is evident on personal levels. It got personal after Councillor Stintz reckoned she had every reason to believe she could be Mayor. Rather than continuing with her sleepy existence at City Hall, she now needed to show she could "get things done". It wasn't enough just complaining about Mayor David Miller. The big money backers had to be shown they could trust Stintz. That she meant "business". To do this she needed to short-change her constituents and suck up to developers. She saw her job now as moving files through the Council system.
Her new attitude first emerged with a 7 storey development proposal for the St James Bond Church site at 1066 Avenue Road. Nobody liked the idea. Not even the City planners, at the start. Seven storeys in a two storey 'neighbourhoods' area was against all the principles of stability enshrined in the Toronto Official plan. The developer "needed" 7 storeys to make financial sense of the purchase price he paid for the tiny lot in the "Lower Avenue". The community needed to protect the neighbourhood. The natural alliance should have been Councillor and community against the developer. That didn't happen. Stintz had already committed to the deal. She needed to demonstrate that she could break ties to the people who had elected her in 2003. The City needed to intensify, it needed money. Developers had money, lots of it, enough to finance election campaigns.
The 1066 debacle is burned into the minds of the residents in the "Lower Avenue", but it is not on video. However, the battle at Council in support of the neighbourhood at Orchard View and Duplex was recorded, and available for all to see. At its2big we've taken some segments to expose Karen Stintz's cold and callous heart.
First up is a clip of the opening minutes of the last Council Meeting of 2010, held on August 25th. In it you will see the Councillor for Ward 16 deny the opportunity to have the Orchard View and Duplex item marked 'urgent'. This is a routine procedure that allows councillors to control when an item will actually be heard. For example, if residents from a Ward wish to see and hear the proceedings around a particular issue they can better schedule their time away from home or work.
On that morning, the Chamber was occupied by a gathering of residents. They would have appreciated the item being heard while they were in the audience. Two of them were using wheelchairs to get around City Hall. Others had work to go to or family to attend. It was only 8 days since the last gathering at the North York Community Council and time was precious.
All of that didn't seem to matter to Councillor Stintz.
When Councillor Walker asked for the matter to be marked 'urgent' it was because he knew a number of the residents were in the audience. Michael Walker was councillor for the area for many years. Consideration for these people would have been on the top of his mind. But not on Karen Stintz's mind. She objected to the item being marked urgent. She said the residents were happy (remember the deputations at Community Council?). Councillor Walker failed and the residents had to leave the Chamber, muttering "what a waste of time, who does she think she is?".
Have a look for yourself - who acted more like a councillor should - Michael Walker or Karen Stintz?
Councillor Stintz lends no support to constituents in the Council Chamber.
Underlying the denial for urgency was a rebuke to Councillor Walker for breaking the rules of 'Ward politics'. Fortunately, Michael Walker had more integrity than Karen Stintz. He wasn't going to back down in a fight for NEIGHBOURHOOD PROTECTION.
