Scott Crawford
"2006 Election Results"
"2006 Campaign Contributions"
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
Comments: This is an interesting question as I am a smoker, but the question of how certain cancers are contracted or prevented has not been fully ascertained by the medical industry. Many people who have led a healthy lifestyle and lived and worked in "clean" environment have still contracted cancer.
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: I question the word "severely" or wish to know what its definition may entail. It behooves the government to make sure they have the finest experts in a lead role when dealing with these types of initiatives.
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: Yes pollution is cumulative, unfortunately the older existing polluters in an area are not to the stricter standards of a proposed facility. An example- St.Mary's and G.M (the top 2 polluters)versus the proposed EFW facility.
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: I would like to know the impacts first. Presently Ajax has a by-law in place for residential use as well as only using environmentally friendly practises on Town lands.
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, the word "exceptional" needs to be defined, but meeting or exceeding the M.O.E standards is the norm.
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: Yes, I do, but many times the people in those areas are not.
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 I said in my last answer, many people will claim they support smart growth but oppose it when it is suggested in their neighbourhood.
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: I do now.
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: I do now.
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: Ajax already has a tree preservation by-law, which I helped put into place (over 10 years ago) but it deals with developing properties and private residential properties.
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: I do now, unfortunately I am losing this battle due to budget restraints.
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: Ajax is slowly aquiring a "greener" fleet.
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: It depends on how it would effect the costs of the service.
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: Ajax has already passed an "Anti-Idling" by-law.
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
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
21. As a councillor, will you seek to stop the proposed EFW / garbage incinerator in Clarington?
Yes, Stop it
No, Build it
Undecided
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: This is an open ended question, so in the short term I can see 75% but in the long term 25 plus years, with Federal and Provincial help, we could see "zero waste".
23. Given your answer to the previous question, when should we aim to achieve that diversion goal?
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Comments: 75% by 2015 and shooting for zero by 2035.
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: Great idea. Ajax uses compostable drinking cups at Town events.
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
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: I would like to hear from our Town Treasurer on the feasibility.
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: I found the question vague, but in the case of Public Transit, the Region loses money to run that essential service.
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
Comments: The Town of Ajax already has a track record of green initatives from a tree planting program to bicycle lanes, as well as receiving an award (that Councillor Jordan and I accepted on behalf of the Mayor) at AMO presented by Minister of the Environment Baird.
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: My main concern with a direct election is to run a campaign across Durham Region it would undoubtedly lead to the involvement of party politics but so many people want to be able to cast a ballot I can see this happening in time for the 2014 election.
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: Ajax already does this.
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
This question was not part of the original questionnaire. It will be added seperately at a later date.
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
This question was not part of the original questionnaire. It will be added seperately at a later date.
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
Comments: I would like to see what the impact of these subsidies would be. Perhaps a sponsorship program, non-partisan (ex. local BIA's, Veridian). Presently there is only a few minutes provide by Rogers 10, I would welcome a candidates debate.
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: It has recently been passed at the Regional level, which I supported.
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 marked "undecided" as I used recyclable signs in several of my earlier elections but moved to plastic as the weather destroyed them and I was spending more time replacing signs then talking to the residents.
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: 3 to 4 years seems appropriate, as 1 or 2 years is too short, I couldn't support a 5 year term.
39. General Comments:
A few questions for Scott Crawford
Thanks for doing this questionaire Scott,
I have a couple of questions on your answers.
Question 13: You say "I am losing this battle due to budget restraints."
Are you losing this battle because the Federal Gas Credit is being spent on the EFW Incinerator?
If the EFW was not going in, would you then have a budget for this expansion, and would you support it?
Question 30: "For future projects, would you insist on a more open, consultative and responsive approval process?" you rated a 3. Why do you oppose this? For the EFW Incinerator, it is MY opinion that not many Durham Residents know about it, it appears (to me) to have been kept secret.
Questions 33 and 34 have not been answered, where do you stand on these issues?