- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,179
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
Clive Doucet returned to city hall this week, complaining about the year-old decision on where to put a new hospital.
One thing about Doucet, on display through his whole 13-year career as the civic councillor for Capital ward, is he cares deeply. He loves Ottawa with an open heart. He wants it to be better, bigger, warmer, more. He is a poet. So when he showed up with four “distinguished panellists” to demand an inquiry into the decision by the federal, provincial and municipal governments to build a new Civic campus for The Ottawa Hospital at the eastern edge of the Central Experimental Farm, it sure sounded good.
Reimagine Ottawa, as they call themselves, had handouts, poster-sized renderings of development sites, a script. They had two typed pages of questions about how the politicians shelved a recommendation from the National Capital Commission to put a new hospital at Tunney’s Pasture and instead decided it will go on the site of the demolished Sir John Carling building, overlooking Dow’s Lake.
Reimagine Ottawa’s theory, never stated explicitly but implied through the questions the group raises, is that The Ottawa Hospital is allegedly acting as a front for land developers. They were horrified they might lose the chance to redevelop Tunney’s Pasture and have also possibly weaselled into the plans at the Sir John Carling site. When the NCC concluded the feds should offer up Tunney’s Pasture, the developers called the politicians and got the decision reversed.
Well, maybe. It would probably be the biggest act of corruption in Ottawa’s history. Executed with startling efficiency, and with the co-operation of MP Catherine McKenna, MPPs Bob Chiarelli and Yasir Naqvi and Mayor Jim Watson, plus the board and management of The Ottawa Hospital, with assists from federal Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly and Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay.
Ottawa Centre MP Catherine McKenna (at podium) addresses the media regarding an agreement among many tiers of government and the hospital board on their choice of the Sir John Carling site for construction of the new Civic hospital. Friday Dec. 2, 2016. Errol McGihon/Postmedia
Or — or! — maybe the hospital compromise was politicians doing what they’re supposed to.
The NCC decided Tunney’s Pasture was the best site for the federal government to offer; the hospital’s separate process determined that a relatively pristine part of the Central Experimental Farm was best for health care. The two final conclusions are irreconcilable. Yet each evaluation found that the final Sir John Carling site was quite good (the lightest behind-the-scenes pressure on the NCC’s evaluation actually would have made the whole public agony unnecessary, but I guess nobody thought of it). The politicians came in and made a judgment, which is why we have them.
People who are very expert in certain things are prone to believing that their wisdom and experience are readily transferrable to other fields. That’s why we have economists and engineers challenging climate science, for instance, and a real-estate-marketing mogul in the White House.
Doucet’s distinguished panel includes a physicist specializing in radiation therapy calculations (David W.O. Rogers), a neurophysiologist in the oceanography instruments business (Frank Johnson, who also owned Irene’s Pub in the Glebe for a few years), a sociologist (Declan Hill, a polyglot justly famous for having exposed corruption in international soccer, and the campaign manager in Doucet’s 2010 run for mayor), and retired judge Monique Métivier. None is a planner, a physician, a builder of hospitals, a public administrator. They’re distinguished, but not at this.
Their two pages of questions are not informed by a mastery of detail.
One asks why the hospital site was rushed onto city council’s planning-committee agenda, which is weird because the planning committee hasn’t discussed it yet. The debate is actually late. The city put a rezoning of the Carling land up for discussion in the summer, with a tentative plan to have it voted on by the end of 2017. Didn’t happen, in part because councillors Riley Brockington and Jeff Leiper (whose wards meet at Carling Avenue) have been trying to make sure the hospital gets the land and manoeuvring room it needs and no more.
Another cites concerns from Pierre Poilievre. “What caused Mr. Poilievre to worry about political interference?” the question goes. Come on. Poilievre’s an opposition politician who rejected the National Capital Commission work wholesale because McKenna and the Liberals were undoing a previous Conservative decision. If Poilievre had the goods on corruption, he wouldn’t keep them secret. And if he had his way, the hospital would be getting land the farm people consider even more valuable.
The boundaries of the site chosen for the new Civic campus of the Ottawa Hospital, seen here before the Sir John Carling federal building was torn down. Carling Avenue runs across the north edge of the property and Prince of Wales Drive curves along the southeast.
Why does the city propose to rezone some of the land right at Preston Street and Carling Avenue for mixed-use development (read: condo towers) instead of institutional? asks a third. I mean, you could read the explanation the city posted, which points out that mixed uses is what city council agreed to in 2014 when it approved a redevelopment scheme for the whole area after years of study, long before the hospital came along. It’s already in the city’s official plan, its land-use bible.
“Can the re-zoning application get a valid hearing when the City of Ottawa is both applicant and adjudicator?” goes a fourth. But this happens regularly — there’s no other system to follow for rezonings — and anyway, nobody thinks twice about the propriety of city council voting on, say, staff recommendations on snowplowing or parking bylaws.
“Answers will require an objective, non-partisan, professional enquiry by all three levels of government,” it says. Specifically, by the Ontario ombudsman, the federal ethics commissioner and the city integrity commissioner. At the news conference, Reimagine Ottawa’s panellists admitted they hadn’t filed any complaints that would trigger any such thing, even if the three had any history of working jointly, which they don’t because there’s no legal mechanism for them to.
Sometimes politicians make decisions with which we disagree. Insisting that the only reason they could do so is because of corruption is wrong. Accusing them of it without any positive evidence is worse.
dreevely@postmedia.com
twitter.com/davidreevely
查看原文...
One thing about Doucet, on display through his whole 13-year career as the civic councillor for Capital ward, is he cares deeply. He loves Ottawa with an open heart. He wants it to be better, bigger, warmer, more. He is a poet. So when he showed up with four “distinguished panellists” to demand an inquiry into the decision by the federal, provincial and municipal governments to build a new Civic campus for The Ottawa Hospital at the eastern edge of the Central Experimental Farm, it sure sounded good.
Reimagine Ottawa, as they call themselves, had handouts, poster-sized renderings of development sites, a script. They had two typed pages of questions about how the politicians shelved a recommendation from the National Capital Commission to put a new hospital at Tunney’s Pasture and instead decided it will go on the site of the demolished Sir John Carling building, overlooking Dow’s Lake.
Reimagine Ottawa’s theory, never stated explicitly but implied through the questions the group raises, is that The Ottawa Hospital is allegedly acting as a front for land developers. They were horrified they might lose the chance to redevelop Tunney’s Pasture and have also possibly weaselled into the plans at the Sir John Carling site. When the NCC concluded the feds should offer up Tunney’s Pasture, the developers called the politicians and got the decision reversed.
Well, maybe. It would probably be the biggest act of corruption in Ottawa’s history. Executed with startling efficiency, and with the co-operation of MP Catherine McKenna, MPPs Bob Chiarelli and Yasir Naqvi and Mayor Jim Watson, plus the board and management of The Ottawa Hospital, with assists from federal Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly and Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay.
Ottawa Centre MP Catherine McKenna (at podium) addresses the media regarding an agreement among many tiers of government and the hospital board on their choice of the Sir John Carling site for construction of the new Civic hospital. Friday Dec. 2, 2016. Errol McGihon/Postmedia
Or — or! — maybe the hospital compromise was politicians doing what they’re supposed to.
The NCC decided Tunney’s Pasture was the best site for the federal government to offer; the hospital’s separate process determined that a relatively pristine part of the Central Experimental Farm was best for health care. The two final conclusions are irreconcilable. Yet each evaluation found that the final Sir John Carling site was quite good (the lightest behind-the-scenes pressure on the NCC’s evaluation actually would have made the whole public agony unnecessary, but I guess nobody thought of it). The politicians came in and made a judgment, which is why we have them.
People who are very expert in certain things are prone to believing that their wisdom and experience are readily transferrable to other fields. That’s why we have economists and engineers challenging climate science, for instance, and a real-estate-marketing mogul in the White House.
Doucet’s distinguished panel includes a physicist specializing in radiation therapy calculations (David W.O. Rogers), a neurophysiologist in the oceanography instruments business (Frank Johnson, who also owned Irene’s Pub in the Glebe for a few years), a sociologist (Declan Hill, a polyglot justly famous for having exposed corruption in international soccer, and the campaign manager in Doucet’s 2010 run for mayor), and retired judge Monique Métivier. None is a planner, a physician, a builder of hospitals, a public administrator. They’re distinguished, but not at this.
Their two pages of questions are not informed by a mastery of detail.
One asks why the hospital site was rushed onto city council’s planning-committee agenda, which is weird because the planning committee hasn’t discussed it yet. The debate is actually late. The city put a rezoning of the Carling land up for discussion in the summer, with a tentative plan to have it voted on by the end of 2017. Didn’t happen, in part because councillors Riley Brockington and Jeff Leiper (whose wards meet at Carling Avenue) have been trying to make sure the hospital gets the land and manoeuvring room it needs and no more.
Another cites concerns from Pierre Poilievre. “What caused Mr. Poilievre to worry about political interference?” the question goes. Come on. Poilievre’s an opposition politician who rejected the National Capital Commission work wholesale because McKenna and the Liberals were undoing a previous Conservative decision. If Poilievre had the goods on corruption, he wouldn’t keep them secret. And if he had his way, the hospital would be getting land the farm people consider even more valuable.
The boundaries of the site chosen for the new Civic campus of the Ottawa Hospital, seen here before the Sir John Carling federal building was torn down. Carling Avenue runs across the north edge of the property and Prince of Wales Drive curves along the southeast.
Why does the city propose to rezone some of the land right at Preston Street and Carling Avenue for mixed-use development (read: condo towers) instead of institutional? asks a third. I mean, you could read the explanation the city posted, which points out that mixed uses is what city council agreed to in 2014 when it approved a redevelopment scheme for the whole area after years of study, long before the hospital came along. It’s already in the city’s official plan, its land-use bible.
“Can the re-zoning application get a valid hearing when the City of Ottawa is both applicant and adjudicator?” goes a fourth. But this happens regularly — there’s no other system to follow for rezonings — and anyway, nobody thinks twice about the propriety of city council voting on, say, staff recommendations on snowplowing or parking bylaws.
“Answers will require an objective, non-partisan, professional enquiry by all three levels of government,” it says. Specifically, by the Ontario ombudsman, the federal ethics commissioner and the city integrity commissioner. At the news conference, Reimagine Ottawa’s panellists admitted they hadn’t filed any complaints that would trigger any such thing, even if the three had any history of working jointly, which they don’t because there’s no legal mechanism for them to.
Sometimes politicians make decisions with which we disagree. Insisting that the only reason they could do so is because of corruption is wrong. Accusing them of it without any positive evidence is worse.
dreevely@postmedia.com
twitter.com/davidreevely
查看原文...
