These are the impressions made by the COUNCIL MEETING, Jan 23 as seen by RICHARD SZPIN. It should not be viewed as the definitive minutes of the meeting. These are available at PICKERING
Delegations, representatives of parties wishing to address the council meeting, presented petitions, requests or made statements.
1. Charles Best Diabetes Centre delegation (Lorrie Hagin (Deborah Novorolsky)
The delegation was seeking funding support for their new expansion. The council approved the sum of $25,000 for the next 4 years.
2. City of Pickering Planning address (Margaret Bowie)
This delegation made a statement relating to the Draft Plan SP-2021-02 which is in its development stages. The delegation was drawing attention to the negative impact and effect the current plan would have on the City of Pickering. Concerns about the natural resources, environmental impact, agricultural effects, and effects on the indigenous. “We do not want to the monstrosities of Toronto or Mississauga. The conclusion seemed to be a call to hear more from the residents of Pickering before the plan continues.
3. Long Term Care (Stephen Mak, Parallel Architecture Consulting Inc.)
The delegation was seeking zoning bylaw changes to allow for the development of a LONG TERM CARE facility with emphasis on the building of additional living accommodations and care facilities for seniors in Pickering. The matter seemed to remain without final resolution here even after lengthy debate. It may have had a concluding motion made and rejected at the end of the meeting.
4. Housing as per Planning Dept (Matt Bentley)
I am unclear and uncertain as to what this delegation was seeking. I believe it was an address of concerns relating to the impact of the City’s current development plans and their impact on the regional greenbelt, and rural communities.
The remainder of the council meeting seemed to dissolve into debate and discussion among the councillors about the delegations criticisms about dealing with availability of housing and accommodations. Comments were made such as we understand the needs of the homeless and we want to empasize that we are Canada, not California. Therefore we must deal with ‘homelessness’ with that in mind.
The meeting seemed to more what some might categorize and ‘grandstanding’ and ‘wanting to be seen’ commentary. At this point, I left.
