Marsha Jones Dooley
"Bio"
2. Do you accept the conclusion of the Canadian Medical Association that air pollution such as currently exists in Durham Region is an immediate health hazard which is contributing to reduced lifespan and quality of life. Read conclusions from the CMA report - No Breathing Room .
Strongly Agree
9
8 7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Disagree
3. Do you agree that any exposure to carcinogenic substances should be avoided at all costs?
Strongly Agree
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Disagree
4. Do you accept that governments should apply the ‘precautionary principle’. i.e. governments should severely restrict any initiatives where there is a likelihood of waste discharges, emissions or other side-effects where the harmful effects are either unknown or poorly understood?
Strongly Agree
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Disagree
5. Do you accept that pollution is cumulative and that the harmful potential of all developments (both new and existing) needs to be evaluated in the context of the environment as a whole rather than each development individually?
Strongly Agree
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Disagree
Comments: I would like to see a ban on plastic packaging where glass and paper can be used and recycled. Throw us back to glass milk and pop bottles, paper bags in grocery stores, no more plastic.
6. Would you support a local by-law to extend the provincial ban on cosmetic pesticide use to include golf courses and other recreational properties not currently included?
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: Golf courses are often beside streams and waterways. If run off of pesticide is the issue property adjacent to water is of primary concern.
7. As a councillor, would you seek restrictions on any new developments (industrial, commercial, residential, etc.) which do not meet exceptional standards for air and water pollution abatement?
Severe restrictions
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Loosen existing restrictions
Comments: Society must have clean processes from beginning to end. We must be able to live with the reside of waste or we have no future.
8. Would you favour high density residential or mixed development at transportation hubs (particularly GO stations) in order to maximize the population near these hubs and reduce the use of private cars?
Strongly Favour
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
9. In order to mitigate the detrimental affects of urban sprawl (servicing costs, transit costs, etc.) would you support a general increase in zoning densities in order to create more compact communities? This is in line with policies of the provincial government.
Strongly Support
9
8
7 6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: As long as doing so keeps a safe environment.
10. As a councillor, would you support the protection of Class 1 farmland from further urban development except in exceptional circumstances?
Highest Priority
9
8 7
6
5
4
3
2
Crazy Idea
Comments: Individual reviews with consideration of neighbouring property uses.
11. As a councillor, would you support changes to zoning regulations to require buffer zones around environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. Second Marsh) to protect them from potentially high impact developments (such as the proposed ethanol plant)? Only minimal impact development would be allowed within these buffer zones.
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
12. Would you support a tree protection by-law in which a permit would be required to cut any mature tree (even on private or development land) and, that even when permitted, replacement trees would have to be planted or fees paid to a municipal environmental fund in compensation? For information on Toronto's by-law, click here .
Strongly Support
9
8
7 6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Private property should be encouraged to maintain trees and be supported by free access to a municipal arborist. Under common law the liability of ownership remains with the property owner. Will the town assume responsibility for all trees?
13. Would you advocate the expansion of local transit routes and their frequency, accompanied by promotions to encourage people to leave their cars at home?
Highest Priority
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
No expansion required
14. Would you support an acquisition policy which required all newly purchased municipal service vehicles to be 'green', to the extent that such vehicles are available?
Zero emissions
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: Yes I agree but is there such a thing? Hybrid cars still have the long tail issue of what to do with the batteries. Are hybrid cars really environmental?
15. Would you support a policy which required all companies with long term contracts to the municipality (e.g. garbage & electrical services) to use 'green' vehicles where such vehicles are available?
Zero emissions
9
8
7 6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: Again are they green from beginning to end or are we left with issues of another kind?
16. Car idling creates pollution and greenhouse gases and also costs drivers money in fuel and wear and tear to their engines. As a councillor, would you support a ban on idling for longer than a few minutes as they have done in Toronto and other GTA communities? See Natural Resources Canada 'Idle-Free Zone' .
High Priority
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Crazy Idea
17. Drive-throughs create traffic congestion, encourage idling and result in reduced physical activity. As a councillor, would you support restrictions on drive-throughs?
Ban Drive-throughs
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
No restrictions
18. Do you support the completion of Hwy 407 east to Hwy 35/115 as a divided, controlled-access highway?
As Quickly as Possible
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Never
19. The environmental imperative strongly indicates that we need to reduce our reliance on private vehicles, and to this end we need to question all major road construction projects. As an alternative to the current design of the 407, would you support downgrading the 407 extension to 'as-needed' improvements to the existing road alignments, and widenings only as the specific need is demonstrated?
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5 4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: 'as-needed' improvements... not cost effective. We have population stats and growth projections. Build and plan for the future, playing catch up should not be the objective.
20. Would you support an end to all regional & local planning for an airport in north Pickering and encourage the federal government to stop further demolitions and return the land to agricultural uses where still practical? Land over Landings website.
Return Airport Lands to Agriculture
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Build Airport Now
Comments: This has been decades of federal indecisions resulting in much upset to families and the community. I would like to see the issue dealt with and finalized.
21. As a councillor, will you seek to stop the proposed EFW / garbage incinerator in Clarington?
Yes, Stop it
No, Build it
Undecided
Comments: Garbage has to go somewhere! NOBODY wants it in any which way but our society makes tons of it. If exhaust filters keep the emission clean, lets build it, filter it and put our energy to stopping the waste in first place. Back to Glass and paper bags is a big start!
22. The alternative to incineration and/or landfill is aggressive waste diversion - "Reduce, Reuse & Recycle". What level of diversion do you believe is feasible?
65%
70%
75%
80%
85% 90%
95%
100%
Comments: We have to stop waste production at the front end of our consumption, the onus shouldn't always be on the end user.
23. Given your answer to the previous question, when should we aim to achieve that diversion goal?
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
24. Would you support an initiative which required all public events on public property to be 'zero garbage' as they currently do in Markham? All materials at such events are required to be recycled and there are no 'garbage' containers. (See Markham's policy. )
Strongly Support
9
8 7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: Agreed - containers for recycled items -concern for balance to be sure the town isn't left with a mess to clean up that could have been avoided.
25. Municipal councils are the owners of all our local power utilities (Whitby Hydro, Veridian, Oshawa Public Utilities). Would you be prepared to use that leverage to insist that these utilities be 'greener'?
Using more fuel efficient vehicles
High Priority
9
8 7
6
5
4
3
2
Bad Idea
Accelerate the implementation of 'smart' metering
High Priority
9
8
7
6 5
4
3
2
Bad Idea
Assist with energy efficiency retrofits
High Priority
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Bad Idea
Provide incentives for local power generation (solar, wind)
High Priority
9
8
7 6
5
4
3
2
Bad Idea
Insist that more green energy is available on the local grid
High Priority
9
8
7
6 5
4
3
2
Bad Idea
Comments: I've read conflicting reports on how green wind an solar are. Again I question is the end product and garbage (batteries) 'green' disposable? More info needed.
26. The vast majority of homes are heated by burning either gas or oil which creates significant greenhouse gases. In order to conserve energy and reduce global warming, municipalities could be encouraging the use of ground source and other high efficiency heat pumps by providing financing of the capital costs through the municipal lending authority, provided the savings more than covered the carrying costs. Residents would repay the loans on their individual tax bills from the savings on their heating bills. Would you support such an initiative?
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6 5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: More info needed. Maybe this should be a new builds requirement?
27. Governments are frequently faced with difficult choices between hard monetary costs and potential health and social costs. Please indicate how you would rate the relative importance of these on the scale below.
Hard Costs, Taxes
9
8
7
6 5
4
3
2
Social & Health Concerns
Comments: Need to evaluate situations as they arise. More information needed. Council has to find a balance.
28. It is important to set goals. Would you support a general initiative to make your community the greenest in Ontario (or one of the greenest in Canada)?
Great idea
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Dumb Idea
29. The Environmental Assessment process for the Clarington EFW / Incinerator has been contentious. Rate the process from 10 (very good) to 1 (very poor).
EFW Process was Very Good
9
8
7
6 5
4
3
2
Process was Bad
30. For future projects, would you insist on a more open, consultative and responsive approval process?
Strongly Support
9 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
31. Would you support an initiative to make the position of Regional Chair elected by voters?
Yes, by Direct Public Election
No, Continue as at Present (appointed by Regional Council)
Undecided / Don't Know
Some Other Option - Please Describe
Comments: This has been addressed and voted on by the Town to no avail.
32. Municipal elections generally have very low turnouts. There are many causes for this, but in an effort to spark greater interest and generate better funded campaigns, would you support tax credits for donations to municipal candidates as they do in Toronto and other communities? (See Toronto's rebate policy. )
Strongly Support
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
Comments: This is part of the Town of Ajax process.
33. Will you accept / refuse campaign donations (directly or indirectly) from developers (any business, or individual working for such a company, which is likely to be asking Council for permission to change any form of land designation.
Accept
Refuse
Other / Comments
Comments: If any one accepted donations from developers they should abstain from any vote and cite a conflict of interest. All donations are visible after election.
34. Will you accept / refuse campaign donations (directly or indirectly) from any business or individual which has or is likely to be seeking contracts with the municipality.
Accept
Refuse
Other / Comments
Comments: Donations are needed but again cite conflict of interest and abstain from vote. All donations are visible after an election.
35. A common complaint about municipal elections is that there are too few opportunities for voters to meet and question candidates. Would you support subsidies to community groups who are willing to sponsor non-partisan all-candidates meetings - these subsidies would be used to rent halls and generate appropriate publicity?
Strongly Support
9
8 7
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly Oppose
36. Would you support changes to the sign by-laws to severely limit both the number and size of election signs on public property (boulevards, etc.)? Signs on private property (with the owner’s permission) would be unaffected.
Ban signs on public property
9
8
7
6
5 4
3
2
No Restrictions
Comments: This may be a hard issue to police. Time restrictions may work better.
37. Should election signs be banned from garbage? In other words should they be required to be recycled?
Signs Must be Recycled
No Restrictions
Undecided / Don't know
Other - Please Specify
Comments: Most who run do so again and again and put their signs into storage. I don't know if this is a big issue. Need more information ... what made this issue a question?
38. In the 1950s municipal elections were held every year. Politicians were responsive to citizens because they were never very far from the next election. Since then the terms for councillors have gradually increased, and in the last election, terms were extended to 4 years. The rationale is that politicians need time to get things done and some of these things might be unpopular ...but necessary. What do you think is the most appropriate term?
One Year
Two Years
Three Years
Four Years
Five Years
Comments: Three to four years should give enough time for the public to evaluate the ability and passion of their elected council.
39. General Comments: It took thought and time to answer these questions. It was very apparent that the questions were well considered in the making process and a lot of time was taken in the preparation. Good Work. Marsha
Incineration...
I could write a novel on why incineration is the wrong idea, but if you had followed the process carefully, you would already know. You lost my vote with one question.