Chair: David Winninger (Councillor)
Vice-Chair: Gary Williams (former Councillor)
Commissioner: Russ Monteith (former Controller)
Commissioner: Harold Usher (Councillor)
Commissioner: Frank Berry

The London Strengthening Neighbourhoods Initiative which has been endorsed by the City recommends the promotion of public transit (see Places-Sustainable-#7).

And with respect to appointments to agencies, Boards and Commissions, the Governance Task Force recommended the elimination/reduction of members of City Council whenever its possible to do so.

A small group of concerned public transit users is now prepared to pursue the goal of increased user representation of the LTC. The first meeting to discuss possible strategy is being held tomorrow. If you’re a regular user of public transit, you’re invited!

Location: Coffee Culture (260 Dundas Street)
Date: Friday, 2010/07/30
Time: 05:00 p.m.

The Vancouver-based Creative City Network of Canada chose London from a list of 18 prospects.

The timing may be a blessing, given the fact that it comes after a number of citizen-led initiatives have not only taken root but have been fairly well accepted by members of City Council. Things like PodCamp, ChangeCamp, Car-Free Sunday, IgniteLondon, Governance Task Force, Strengthening Neighbourhoods, PhotoWalk, Parking Day (proposed), Open Data Initiative, etc.

But as good as all of those things are, they’ll be largely invisible to the visitors that the summit attracts. Won’t they? Or is there a way that we can make them (and others) come alive while this summit is being held? How can we use this opportunity to showcase London as a fairly traditional city that is starting to “get it” and should be viewed (especially by the younger generation) as a city that has promise?

How shall I describe the state of this consultation: Javascript is required to browse responses which have already been submitted.

The five topic questions are presented within the following commentary by the consultation web site:

Over 10 years ago, the CRTC set an objective for telecommunications companies to provide Canadians in all regions with access to high-quality, reliable, and affordable basic telephone services. Today, over 99% of Canadians have basic telephone service that includes the following:

- individual line local Touch‑Tone telephone service;

- access to low-speed Internet at local rates;

- access to the long distance network and to operator/directory assistance services;

- enhanced calling features, including access to emergency services, voice message relay service, and privacy protection features; and

- access to a copy of the current local telephone directory.

1. What services should be included as part of your basic telephone services today?

2. In the context of this objective, what role, if any, should the CRTC play in ensuring that all Canadians have access to broadband Internet service?

The wireless industry has been growing steadily for many years and today all Canadians have access to wireless services. Three Canadians out of four have a cellphone and an increasing number of Canadian households are wireless-only. Also, more and more people are connecting to the Internet using wireless services (e.g. Wi-Fi, 3G networks or satellite).

3. Do you think that cellphone service can be a substitute for traditional home phone landline service? Explain why or why not.

4. Do you think that wireless services (e.g. Wi-Fi, 3G networks or satellite) can be substitutes for landline services to connect to the Internet? Explain why or why not.

Broadband Internet access is increasingly being used for a variety of activities, for example education, health care, business, and entertainment, to name just a few.

5. For what activities do you use or expect to use your Internet service?

Character development isn’t just for children
Don’t let social media…
Family game night
Halfway to a year
My new eco tax
Open data in London, Ontario
Rainy day money
Summer layereing – the white shirt
When philanthropy kills

In a recent media release (”73 y.o. Arrested“; Online London; 2010/07/23), Sgt. Tom O’Brien describes a gentleman’s protest against dump trucks travelling through his residential neighbourhood. We’re told that the trucks had been given “a three day “exemption” from Heavy Truck Route bylaw” but we’re not told if the City had attempted any communication with affected homeowners and offered them the opportunity to raise objections in a public meeting first.

Why is arbitrary heavy-handed action on the part of the City okay but not when you or I do it?

Why did the police choose to portray this gentleman’s behaviour as unsavoury by using a “mischief” charge? Doesn’t that word convey the suggestion that there was no valid public interest in his action? If so, exactly how did the police determine that there was no credible political reason for his action? Could the police have chosen to react in some other way, like suggesting to the City that they take a civil action against him?

Mind you, if the police and the City took that approach, a judge might decide that it was the City that had acted inappropriately.

I’ll be sending a media inquiry to David Leckie (Director of Roads and Transportation) and Orest Katolyk (Manager, By-law Enforcement) and will let you know what they have to say, if anything.

Which is what ward 4 Councillor Stephen Orser would do, if he could have his way.

During his remarks to ETC on Monday (watch the Online London video) Councillor Orser said again that he wants the walkway between Victoria and Leroy closed. And according to his written submission, if he can’t get it closed he wants to see usage prohibited from dusk until dawn.

Feeble Remedy

Said Orser:

I’ve taken the time to talk to a person who said that he was a consultant out on the site and he told me that for $2,500 we’re going to find out where we’re going to put 2 lights on this walkway. Out of the $40,000 we’ve spent $2,500 on the consultant and there’s nothing much been done other than some trees removed and hedges and it’s still the same walkway.

Despite his terrible anti-pedestrian stance, the Councillor did manage to get this part right. Because what ETC and Council originally proposed was only a half-hearted remedial token gesture. When it comes to problem walkways, the City of London is reactive vs proactive. How long have I complained about the insufficient size of the Warranted Walkway Lighting Budget and that the amt. of money spent on pedestrian safety that makes a mockery of the Council’s purported support of alternative transit.

David Leckie (Director of Transportation) had this to say about the plans for the walkway:

Staff worked with LPS to issue a report. There were a number of recommendations contained in that joint effort. The police and staff reviewed the site and felt that there were 2 measures that they could endorse and those were put before ETC and Council late in 2009 and they were twofold. One was to trim vegetation back for about $5,000 in cost. The second was to improve the lighting. There is a light there but it’s sub-standard to today’s lighting and the cost for that was $35,000. So we’re on the hook to deliver $40,000 worth of improvements to the site.

Walkway Design

Mr. Leckie went on to say that the City doesn’t have electrical design expertise on staff and so a consultant had to be hired to prepare a design.

There is something terribly wrong with the fact that subdivisions were allowed to built in a manner which necessitated these walkways in the first place. Mr. Galloway (London’s urban planner) is perfectly correct when he advocates for a grid-based design for streets/neighbourhoods. But worse than that, there’s something equally wrong with the way in which too many of the walkways were allowed to be built. There should be a design standard which all walkways have to meet which would eliminate the need to hire a consultant every time a walkway issue comes up. And that design standard should include adequate lighting, sufficient width, measures to prohibit the growth of intrusive weeds, and grading which restricts any slope of the walkway to what women, children, the disabled and the elderly can comfortably manage.

Feeble Remedy Taking Too Long To Implement

Leckie stated that “the design is finished or close to being finished and we’re now looking at ordering materials and believe that we can have the lighting installed by the end of August.”

Councillor Cheryl Miller observed that “it’s been a long time in coming and that “the kids will be back in school by then.” And Councillor Hubert managed that “I am a little surprised that it’s taken this almost a full year to come back.”

It’s inexcusable that so little has been done in such a long time, but it’s typical. Usually a woman has to be attacked in a walkway before the subject comes up, unless I’m the one raising the issue.

Let’s Not Spend Money On A Pedestrian Project If We Can Invent An Excuse Not To

Mr. Leckie offered this rationale for ignoring the need of those pedestrians who are not most physically capable:

The study did look at other things like removing the stairs and making a more gentle transition between the streets but the trouble is that it’s so steep that it would have to be cut back sideways onto the adjacent properties and so the last Council decision fell short of actually acquiring property… It would involve both sides of the pathway in order to make it a gentler slope.

That’s the same crap that staff initially told me about the walkway between Eagle Cr. and King Edward Ave. which I lobbied hard to get improved. Funny thing though. After I started going around asking residents if they’d be interested in signing up for a class-action lawsuit against the City, that walkway was suddenly graded.

The problem is that pedestrians don’t have a champion on City Council.

Ask yourself this. If there was a road in the city that only the most capable vehicles could travel on, how long would it take staff to recommend that it be improved in order to be accessible to all vehicles?

Women and children and the disabled deserve no less respect from staff and members of Council.

Polhill’s Attempt

I’ve got to give some credit here to Controller Bud Polhill. He demonstrated a willingness to explore the possibility of grading the walkway:

It might not be an issue of acquiring property if you’re helping people. They might allow you on their property for an easement to help solve the problem. Did we talk to them about that?

I’ve tried to find a charitable way to describe here what Mr. Leckie’s response was, but I just can’t find it within myself to do it. Because I’m appalled. So here it is, as it came from his mouth:

We did not receive that direction so we did not follow that.

And later, after Controller Polhill made a last-ditch effort to get the committee recommendation to include a request that would have seen grading explored further, this was the way that Councillor Hubert shot down his attempt:

They would have to move their entire garages. If you walked down the walkway then you would realize that it’s not possible to do that.

Instead of simply dismissing the spirit of Controller Polhill’s suggestion, that more effort needs to be made to examine how to properly grade the walkway, Councillor Hubert could have and should have added his support for such effort. I’m sorry to say that if pedestrians are looking for somebody on Council to champion their needs, they’re no more likely to find that person in Councillor Hubert than in Councillor Orser.

If the garages preclude asking the property owners adjacent to the walkway for their cooperation in grading it, then that would appear to leave the option of land acquisition. This is what Mr. Leckie had to say about that:

It’s my understanding that some grading would interfere with garages that are already there but I don’t know what other conflict there would be. But if you don’t acquire the land, if we just re-grade it, then we would be putting the fence back in the same place and the owner would have a residual slope of some sort back onto their property against the fence and I don’t know how attractive that would be.

The bottom line is that this walkway ought never have been allowed by the City to be designed this way and that the City is responsible for the difficulty faced by pedestrians and for fixing the problem. Instead of just guessing what difficulties might be encountered in trying to fix the grading problem, Mr. Leckie might also try coming up with solutions to the problem. Excuses won’t cut it. Pedestrians deserve better.

Surprising Disclosure

Quite unexpectedly, this comment came from Councillor Miller:

I understand the fear that goes on in that walkway. I can assure you that there’s a number throughout the city that are subjected to the same problems.

Wow! This is the first time that I’ve ever heard a member of Council admit such a thing in a public meeting. It begs the question, why isn’t Council doing more to identify and resolve pedestrian safety issues? And why hasn’t Council opened a dialogue with LPS to see why there isn’t better enforcement of these walkways? And what does this say about the City’s legal liability position?

And Yet Another Surprise

Councillor Hubert wondered if the police responded after they had been called. Councillor Orser replied that he had been told after the fact that the police had responded “very quickly.” But immediately after Councillor Hubert’s “I’m delighted to hear that our police service responded quickly” Councillor Miller was quick to say, “well now, let’s not be misled on this.”

Unfortunately, no substantive explanation was offered for that remark. Perhaps we’ll get some additional insight when the Councillor joins AM980’s McArthur for this week’s installment of his ’roundtable’ segment.

I do have a safety concern, however. Not because I think the carriage rides are unsafe, but because of driver behaviour.

I’m especially concerned about the safety of allowing carriage rides on the section of Richmond Street that borders Victoria Park. I’ve been shooting video of the Richmond/Kent intersection lately (where the pedestrian crosswalk is) and I have serious concerns about what I’ve witnessed there. So much so, in fact, that I’ve promised to burn the video to DVD and provide it to David Leckie (Director of Transportation).

For that reason, I oppose the decision taken by ETC at Monday’s meeting to accept the staff recommendation. That recommendation was to allow the rides without any regulation (watch the Online London video).

On Saturday, July 17th, 2010 at approximately noon, a female was bit by a dog in the area of Maitland Street and Horton Street. The female sustained three punctures to her left leg which required medical attention.

The dog is described as black in colour and medium height, with no identification tags or collar. The London Police are seeking to identify the dog and its owner to verify vaccination records. Anyone with information surrounding this incident are asked to contact 519-661-5670.

On Saturday, July 17, 2010, at 9:30pm, a male entered into a rental unit at 2031 Dundas St in the City of London and spoke to a female acquaintance, looking for her boyfriend. The male was told by the female that her boyfriend did not reside with her at the address, at which point the male lifted the bottom of his shirt and exposed the black handle of a handgun, which was tucked into his waistband. The male uttered a threat to the female and her boyfriend and left the room. The female victim eventually contacted police and at 12:20am, members of the London Police Emergency Response Unit located the male in a separate rental unit at the same location, where he was arrested without incident.

Erwin LONG, 47 years of age, of no fixed address, is charged with two counts of Uttering a Threat to Cause Death or Bodily Harm and one count of Possession of a Weapon Dangerous to the Public Peace. A silver pellet gun with a black handle was recovered at the scene.