Melissa Godley
"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
Comments: The term "you are what you eat" also rings true with what you breathe! When I lived near a plant that produced parts for the local automotive industry, my two children suffered from bronchial troubles and ear infections consistently. When I approached other parents in the neighbourhood they said "Welcome to the neighbourhood of breathing troubles!"
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
Comments: As long as they are scientifically proven, it should be mandatory to identify the areas they are present in and make all the necessary adjustments to rid them. I do however, not believe in fear mongering or sensationalism - show me the proof. It have been shown time and time again, especially in this day of instant knowledge through technology, you can't always believe what you read.
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
Comments: Of course! The government works as an agent of the people, representing our best interests. If they are willing to "brush under the rug" certain issues that may affect our health or daily living, they should be held accountable.
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: If I am reading the question correctly, then I believe that each situation needs to be evaluated as a stand alone. One particular circumstance, especially in a specific industry,may be different than the rest and it would not be fair to paint everyone with the same brush. There are good guys and bad guys in every sector - it's the regulatory bodies responsibility to weed out who is who.
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: As long as this wouldn't in the long run cause concern with specific threatening plantlife eg. the Hogweed that is currently being discovered
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: Again, I would need to look at each case individually. As we all know, there are acceptable levels and if a development fell within that bracket then I would see no problem with it. Again, saying EVERY development is the same is not realistic nor conducive to bringing new business.
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
Comments: I personally think public transportation is the way to go (no pun intended) HOWEVER, with that being said - something needs to drastically change in order for it to be efficient. The fact that it takes 30-45 minutes by bus to get where it would take 5-10 minutes by car is NOT acceptable! (and the main reason why so many in Durham opt to drive)
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 before this type of thing is thoroughly investigated by looking at already existing communities that have it. I am a firm believer that past performance predicts future behaviour and I do not think that reducing service/transportation costs should come at the expense of something, like, higher crime rate. It is a proven fact that more people in a little area increases crime so there would need to be a strategic plan in place BEFORE hand on how to deal with it.
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: Most certainly!!! And for SO many different reasons 1) prices continue to increase on groceries 2) importing from other countries continues to rise 3) job loss is consistent 4) we're losing a part of our heritage. One of the best ideas I have seen lately is the community garden and the shop for groceries that are from within 100km of home. I would love to see more of this.
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
Comments: We need green space, especially in an urban environment! Childhood memories of seeing wildlife, the ability to go for a day trip and have a picnic, cross country skiing without paying astronomic fees or travelling hours.....It, quite frankly, disturbs me that my children have to go to places like Nonquon Conservation area or Dufferin's Creek in order to see some of the birds/animals that once made their home in our backyards.
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
Comments: As long as these trees did not cause undue stress on anyone - particularly in the case of fees paid.
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
Comments: ABSOLUTELY!!! As I mentioned previously, it's simply ridiculous how long it takes to get somewhere through public transit and the fact that the schedules stop around midnight is ludacris since we have been for a VERY long time, a 24 hour area
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: As long as the costs were not sky high
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: Same as above
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
Comments: This is where I show my ignorance, I already thought we had such a legislation in Oshawa.
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
Comments: Yes - there is nothing more annoying than between the hours of 6:30 & 9 am on Simcoe St.N. being stuck behind the enormous amount of traffic trying to get their morning Timmy's! I love my Tim Hortons as much as the next person, but park and get out of your car!!!
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
Comments: I believe it will relieve traffic congestion, causing less idling and emissions during the business week commute and cottage country weekends. I do hope that they would insist that some of the revenue go towards environmental issues.
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: I am sorry, until we have a better public transit system, this definitely needs to go through. Public transit east of Oshawa is all but non-existant and if you live in Bowmanville, Newcastle or Orono, you NEED that.
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: I am middle of the road on this issue due to the jobs it would create and the tourism it would instill. I would need to familiarize myself with the issue more than a I am currently before taking a solid stand
21. As a councillor, will you seek to stop the proposed EFW / garbage incinerator in Clarington?
Yes, Stop it
No, Build it
Undecided
Comments: YOU BET! No incinerator here thank you very much!!!!
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: As a private condo corp (and there are plenty in Durham), we currently pay condo fees to have our recycling done. Because of this, it is VERY expensive and we only do newspapers, cardboard, plastic and glass on a limited basis per month. We do not have access to the wet recycling initiative. There needs to be more involvement for establishments such as ours so that the cost doesn't prohibit the act of recycling.
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: I feel that if there is already a model that is working somewhere else, why can't you at least try it? It more than likely will require modifications but you don't have to "reinvent the wheel"
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: It all depends on cost - consumers and taxpayers are already stretched to the limit
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: As long as the cost is not prohibitive and citizens aren't being forced. I am all for change in order to assist the environment - after all it's the only one we have! - but not at the expense of those who can't afford it
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: I'd be a hypocrite if I said I supported initiatives and didn't use recycled/recyclable materials for my campaign!
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
39. General Comments:
Recent Comments
2 weeks 6 days ago
4 weeks 1 day ago
10 weeks 2 days ago
10 weeks 2 days ago
10 weeks 6 days ago
19 weeks 6 days ago
21 weeks 7 hours ago
21 weeks 7 hours ago
21 weeks 6 days ago
39 weeks 4 days ago