Ottawa Council Reverts Back to Dysfunction
Ottawa Council Reverts Back to Dysfunction
And the Mayor did nothing to stop it.
Mark Sutcliffe kicked off the first Ottawa City Council meeting of 2024 by noting the public feedback commending the “professional and respectful tone of our Council”.
It took Council less than 45 minutes to return back to the acrimony and division that characterized the previous City Council.
At issue was a $300,000 voluntary contribution offered by a developer, Katasa, to make improvements to the immediate community around their already-approved project at Carling and Bronson. Read about the specific debate here, here and here.
I’m not going to get into the specifics of this proposal (although Katasa rescinded their offer following the Council debacle). I’ll just note that Planning Committee unanimously approved the agreement a week ago. And that the previous Ottawa City Council unanimously approved similar voluntary contributions for the Herongate Development, Manor Park Estates, the Bank and Riverside towers, 1047 Richmond Rd, 142 Nepean St, and probably others in recent years.
So what happened this time?
Vindictiveness and pettiness
Here’s my take: certain suburban councillors have a hate-on for Capital Ward Councillor Menard and didn’t want him to have a win.
That’s all this really comes down to. The Ottawa City Council version of Mean Girls.
Alan Hubley opened the floodgates of acrimony, referring to the contribution as:
“a bag of money”.
Other suburban councillors jumped in, citing “optics” or an “opaque process” — effectively questioning Menard’s integrity.
Matthew Luloff went furthest, insinuating wrong doing and saying it didn’t pass the smell test:
“I have it on good authority that the developer felt pressured to make the contribution and understood that it was simply the way we did things in Ottawa”.
Luloff refused to withdraw those comments, back them up with evidence, or apologize for them.
And that’s when the Mayor didn’t step in.
A failure of leadership
The Mayor, as chair of the Council meeting, could have stopped the lack of “professional and respectful tone” right then and there.
Sutcliffe could have insisted Luloff withdraw his comments. Sutcliffe could have proposed to eject Luloff out of the Council meeting if Luloff refused. Sutcliffe could have called a time-out and reminded Councillors that the people of Ottawa want decorum and a grown-up discussion at their Council table.
But he didn’t. He did nothing. He let a number of Councillors put into question a colleague’s reputation, and in one instance, potentially slander that individual.
That demonstrated a serious lack of leadership. But it showed something else.
Back to the politics of division
Mayor Sutcliffe is now picking up where his predecessor, Jim Watson, left off. Watson realized that he could convince enough outside-the-greenbelt Councillors to support his agenda, and not have to address the concerns of those inside-the-greenbelt.
A structural problem
Generally speaking, Councillors and residents inside-the-greenbelt have different priorities from those outside-the-greenbelt. In very broad terms, I could characterize that difference as: taxes, roads and police vs. transit, housing and climate action.
It also seems to me that Sutcliffe favours those outside-the-greenbelt priorities, and is ready to put your money where his mouth is.
Do you share this perspective that the Mayor is favouring some constituents over others? If so, would you be ready to do something about it?
Let me know in the poll below.
I’m looking forward to your answer. Might even do something about it …
I 100% agree with your assessment of the mayor's and council's priorities and have been growing more and more frustrated with Ottawa leadership post-amalgamation. I say all this as someone who grew up in Arnprior and lived as a young teen within Ottawa city limits on a rural route. It makes zero sense that our home 10km from highway 417, that public transit did not serve and that was a 45-minute drive from Kanata Centrum was and is considered a part of the city of Ottawa. The needs of rural property owners are completely different from city-dwelling renters, and the way our city is run needs to reflect that, especially as cost of living continues to rise.
The snow-clearing downtown has been abysmal this winter, and has only marginally improved as winterlude approaches (snowbanks around the QED near Pretoria were only just cleared this morning, about 3 weeks after the major snowfall) which speaks volumes to me about the priorities of council and the mayor. I fail to see how allowing the city center of the alleged capital of Canada to crumble in favour of those living within city limits but outside of the city helps anyone or even generates any of the capital needed to sustain us ... maybe that's a bit dramatic, but it's feeling pretty dire around here. I thought tourism was major in Ottawa, but based on the poor quality of street cleaning, public transit (and communication around how to access public transit) and the infrastructure needed to support public transit (bus lanes, benches and shelters), and sanitation (sometimes feels like there are maybe 3 public trashcans in all of the downtown core) among other things (like housing, mental health services and harm reduction programs that would most definitely make a positive impact on what are perceived as "dangerous" areas, aka underserved areas with a large houseless population) ... I'm wondering why anyone would want to visit. I've never been a great enjoyer of tourism as an industry, but seeing as that's one of many ways to stimulate our local economy that we hear so much about, it seems foolish to take for granted that people will want to visit and spend money here. It's become abundantly clear that the priorities of the majority of council do not include the vast majority of downtown residents, so I'm taking the tourist perspective instead of the "person-just-trying-to-live" one.
I'm not sure where people who work at all the gastropubs, pot shops and boutiques that have taken over the downtown core (for what I am sure is close to if not sub-minimum wage) are supposed to live when rent prices continue to rise, public transit is slowly dismantled, and essential businesses like pharmacies, grocery stores, etc. don't seem to be prioritized when planning new developments. We don't need a dispensary every 5 feet and 10 artisanal sandwich restaurants (as fun as these things can be), we need affordable groceries and basics.
Further, parking spots for renters can cost upwards of $200 extra dollars a month. So if you can't find a place to live within walking distance of work, can't get a bus and can't afford a car...???? I guess in the eyes of city leadership, that's simply not their problem. I would honestly love for council and the mayor to have to seek out housing and live like a lower-middle-class person for the entirety of their term - maybe then we'd finally see some social gains. Really seems like most if not all of city leadership outside the Greenbelt have no clue what it's like to actually live with the austerity policies many of them support.
Anyways. Thank you Neil for your thoughts and efforts!!!
More than what's important to me, council is not working in the best interests of the City of Ottawa. It's not a zero-sum game! When part of society improves, we all improve. More for one part of the city doesn't mean less for another.
As for missing evidence, that's a huge issue in city decision-making. Data drives good decisions; emotions do not.
Finally, Mayor Sutcliffe's behaviour is looking much like Jim Watson's and Larry O'Brien's. And that is definitely not a good thing for the city.