Posts Tagged ‘ODSP’

London’s ODSP LTC Users

September 23, 2008

fowgre avatar

Yesterday’s CAPS Committee received a +1,000 name petition and heard a verbal delegation about Public Transportation Funding to ODSP Recipients.

Councillor Armstrong did most of the questioning, although most of it couldn’t be heard by me. Why do committee members make such little effort to use their microphones properly? I continue to speculate if it’s a deliberate tactic so that the public can’t be informed?

Although credit must be given to Councillor Winninger for asking whether there ought to be universality instead of a hodgepodge of municipal subsidies, there appeared to be an embarrassing lack of interest by the so-called ‘progressive’ Council members. Quite notably, none of them drew attention to the fact that there’s no such subsidy in London at all.

Nobody mentioned the LTC fare increase proposal. And they certainly didn’t mention how London LTC users already pay a much higher proportion in fares than do users in other Ontario cities (something that they’ve been told by the LTC’S GM repeatedly).

Nobody mentioned the Health Unit report about the huge inflationary increase of food during the past year and has been such a burden for people on ODSP and other fixed incomes.

Given how well they’re paid for their part-time gig, I think they’re all just too completely out of touch with London’s most vulnerable.

ODSP ‘Day Of Action’

March 5, 2008

OPSEU conducted a province-wide protest yesterday “to raise awareness of the stress faced by front line workers who handle more than 500 [ODSP] cases at a time.” 01

“The call for a Day of Action [resulted from] … severe understaffing and under funding that has caused a crisis in a provincial program that administers and distributes more than $2.6 billion in income support payments to disabled Ontarians living in poverty. Clients often go months before receiving benefit payments and service because of backlogs.” 02

01. 2008/03/05 – The Spec: Disability workers exhausted
02. 2008/02/27 – Marketwire: OPSEU to Stage ODSP Information Pickets…

Other Links:
2007/07/14 – ODSP Google Group: Problems faced by employees …

NDP Pay Pledge

September 13, 2007

pig picKerry Gillespie correctly writes that “The NDP have long cried foul over the wage hike Liberal and Progressive Conservatives MPPs voted for just before Christmas” (“Hampton vows $10 wage, MPP pay cut“; Toronto Star; 2007/09/13). He tells us that Hampton has “vowed” to “immediately” raise the minimum wage to $10 “if elected” and then “index it to inflation.”

To begin with, if you hop on over to the NDP site you’ll see that this is listed under “Headlines” as a “Key Commitment” instead of one of the Party “Campaigns.”

Next, a reminder that political promises are worth a big fat ZERO. No politician can be trusted to keep them, even if he’s wearing NDP orange. Remember the NDP’s policies re: Sunday Shopping, Public Auto Insurance, etc. and what happened after Bob Rae was elected?

Does the fact that Mr. Hampton is raising the stakes matter to you? A vow, I’m sure you know, is more than just a simple promise. It is a promise before God. Does Mr. Hampton even believe in God? Does it matter? Mr. McGuinty is a Catholic, and that didn’t stop his record number of broken promises in the last election campaign.

Even if Hampton and the NDP genuinely care about the poor, does the vow platform promise commitment talking point go far enough?

The minimum wage shouldn’t just be indexed to inflation. That won’t do anything to suppress the growing disparity between the rich and the poor in our society. That won’t do anything to keep our political “leaders” in touch with the reality of being poor. As I have advocated for so long, better to tie political salaries to what people on social assistance receive.

2007/09/13 – NDP promises to raise…
2007/09/13 – Globe and Mail: Ontario NDP promises $10 minimum wage
2007/09/13 – LFP: Hampton promises to roll MPP raise back
2007/09/14 – Toronto Star: Hampton vows $10 wage, MPP pay cut
2007/09/14 – Globe and Mail: NDP in office would increase…

Khalil Ramal’s PR BS

September 4, 2007
FlickOffLiberals graphic
pig pic
Pigs at the Trough

Notwithstanding the fact that the election writ hasn’t been dropped and this is therefore legal, I find it distasteful that London-Fanshawe Liberal MPP Khalil Ramal’s office just sent out a full-colour glossy 5.5″ x 8.5″ PR postcard.

The justification from politicians for these things (and politicians of EVERY political stripe do it) is that it’s to keep their constituents updated about what’s going on. But, come on… how informative are they, ever? Truth is, these things are mainly taxpayer-funded PR pieces. The intent is to raise the politician’s name recognition, the biggest single factor in electoral success.

What I find most objectionable about this mailout, is the attempt to portray Ramal as somebody who is responsive to his constituents because he was “moved” by a purportedly oxycontin-influenced double-suicide and thereafter “introduced a private member’s bill to monitor the prescription of drugs like this one.”

Tugs at your heart strings, doesn’t it? I’m sure that it’s meant to.

Well, I’m another one of Ramal’s constituents. How responsive has he been to me?

To begin with, he didn’t demonstrate any respect for my democratic rights when I tried to contest the last municipal election and ran into a roadblock by ODSP and asked him for assistance. Apparently, that didn’t bother him at all.

Ask yourself this question… If Mr. Ramal doesn’t have any respect for the democratic rights of other citizens (and the right to participate in the democratic process is about as fundamental as it gets), then does Mr. Ramal have any moral right to hold public office himself?

Another example. I’ve been very active trying to promote pedestrian rights and speaking out about pedestrian safety issues. I was instrumental in having London police do a study about the intersection at Commissioners/Pond Mills, which is in the riding that Mr. Ramal represents. It’s one of those “channelized” intersections which are becoming increasingly popular with city engineers, and they’re characterized by rounded corners and pedestrian “islands.” In the study, London police confirm that this design is dangerous to pedestrians. Has Mr. Ramal shown any concern about this? Has he discussed the situation with the city? According to my recent Freedom of Information appeal, the answer is NO. Has he responded to me? The answer is NO.

I’ll give him credit for this though… he doesn’t seem to miss very many photo op’s.


Determining Social Assistance Rates

August 28, 2007
FlickOffLiberals graphic
pig pic
Pigs at the Trough

In a 1988 Transitions report, the Ontario government reviewed social assistance programs and found them to be inadequate. Almost 20 years later, some Hamilton poverty activists who are tired of waiting for elected officials to give a damn have decided to lend a hand.1

The Ontario Social Assistance Rate Determination Act, 2007 is draft legislation “to create and empower a civilian panel and charge them with researching, reviewing and revising the benefit rates for Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program” and “directs the panel to create regionally different rates based an actual costs.”

The draft law also directs the panel to include funding for fire insurance and to base food expenditures on the price of the “healthy food basket” data collected by each regional health department every year; it would also more closely track energy and utility costs for the recipients, all of which goes well beyond the current calculations used in arriving at a social assistance rate.2

The proposed law has the support of community legal clinics.

Poverty activists push for civilian panel
An Open Letter to MPPs

Standing Up for The Little Guy

June 11, 2007

Lawyer Sarah Shartal of Roach, Schwartz and Associates and plaintiffs Joy Adams and Janice Wareham are trying to hold the government of Ontario to account “for the way it treats the province’s poorest, sickest citizens” (“Standing up for disabled Ontarians“; Carol Goar; Toronto Star; 2007/06/11).

Apparently, a class action lawsuit has been launched on behalf of disabled Ontarians caught in the bureaucratic quagmire of trying to qualify for disability support. “Roughly 25,000 Ontarians apply for disability support every year. Half are turned down. Many more don’t even apply because the process is so onerous.”

It’s about damn time. Next on my list of pipe dreams… a law firm with enough integrity to launch a class action suit on behalf of the thousands of Ontarians who have no meaningful access to the legal system.

Nutrition Allowance for Social Assistance Recipients

January 30, 2007

My letter 2007/01/30 letter to the London-Middlesex Board of Health with respect to a nutrition allowance for social assistance recipients:

Mr. Tom McLaughlin, Chair
London-Middlesex Board of Health
c/o London-Middlesex Health Unit

Please be advised that I wish to draw to your attention, today’s excellent Toronto Star article entitled “Meal subsidy sought for poor.”

In the article, Donovan Vincent quotes the Toronto Medical Officer of Health, Dr. David McKeown, with having said that the province “ought to increase social assistance rates to include a ‘nutrition allowance’ to help the poor pay for healthy meals.”

Kindly respond, indicating whether or not the London-Middlesex Board of Health has ever adopted a similar stance and communicated that position to the Ontario provincial government? And if not, whether it might consider discussion of doing so on it’s next agenda?

I note that the costs cited in your “Nutritious Food Basket” ( article has not been updated since July 2006. Might I suggest that the Ontario government largesse (25 cents/hour increase to minimum wage vs. 25% increase in MPP salaries) has already been lost to inflation?

Also, there are no links from that article to any spreadsheet containing the actual components of said Food Basket or the costs attributed to those items. Might I ask for a bit more transparency please? How can I obtain said data which should be considered to be public information?


Mr. Greg Fowler,

2006 Ward 1 Municipal Candidate.

Toronto Board of Health Calls for Nutrition Allowance

January 30, 2007

Dr. David McKeown (Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health) is attributed as saying that the poor in Toronto aren’t eating properly because social assistance rates can’t cover both shelter and nutritious meals.

In “Meal subsidy sought for poor” (Toronto Star; 2007/01/30), Donovan Vincent reports that the Toronto Health Board uses a tool called the Nutritious Food Basket, which measures the amount of money needed to buy healthy foods such as rice, chicken, meat and vegetables. “66 specified foods are priced in at least six different grocery stores, including major supermarket chains and independent stores in Toronto. The measurement is based on a provincial method used by every public health unit in the province.”

According to Dr. McKeown, the components of the Food Basket are chosen based upon a premise that “It’s based on purchasing basic food ingredients. You have to have the skills to cook from scratch all of your meals… It’s not a rich diet. It takes no account of any kind of pre-processed or prepared food or eating out. It’s just the basics.”

The article quotes Dr. McKeown as saying that the Toronto Board of Health is asking the Ontario government “to take a different approach to setting social assistance rates: to set them based on the information the province asks us to collect about the cost of healthy eating” and has adopted the position that a nutrition allowance should be built into the basic allowance in social assistance.

London Transportation – My Public Response to Paul Berton

January 6, 2007

Hold onto your hats… this is a long post…

Mr. Berton,

To begin with, a note of appreciation for today’s “Back transit plan before it’s too late” editorial. Public transit is hugely important towards safe and healthy cities, and as I’ve written to you before and despite all of City Hall’s posturing, sadly ignored (as evidenced by per-capita mode share stats). Had it not been for significant transfer payments from the province and the feds in recent years, I hate to think what sad shape public transit in London would now be in.

LTC ridership was 18,761,000 in 1988. But thanks to the political pressure of the 0%-tax increase coalition, Council’s attitude toward increased support of public transit and other necessary services became very negative. The result was that LTC made a decision to increase user rates, the results were predictable. Ridership decreased year after year for the next 8 years! From a ridership level of only 11,905,000 in 1996, we are only now in 2006 finally getting back to that 1988 level.

But even that stat is deceiving, because the city has grown considerably since then. Whereas the 18,761,000 riders in 1988 represented a very modest mode share of 10%, the 18,276,000 riders which the service attracted in 2005 only represent a mode share of 7%. In order to match projected population growth and simply recapture the 10% share, the TDM estimates that ridership has to grow an average 600,000 additional rides per year, every year, until 2024.

Along with community centres (which I also strongly support), let’s not forget the importance that public transit plays in the lives of marginalized citizens (OW, ODSP, minimum-wage earners, disabled, etc), the increasing disparity between rich/poor in our society, and the resultant societal problems and huge health/policing costs that go along with those.

Perhaps if this initiative succeeds, more citizens will have access to Fanshawe Pioneer Village (as one example of a less accessible but important community resource) and it’s consequent improved finances will in turn reduce pressure on City Council at budget time.

To borrow a phrase from Arlene Kennedy, “Our city must become the centre for innovative and creative thinking.” Contrary to statements from the developer-backed naysayers on City Council, increased municipal investment in public transit would move us in that direction.

Might I suggest a follow-up article which examines the true cost of private automobile usage, not only including such things as purchase price, insurance, maintenance, license… but also things like municipal road widening, road extensions, public parking, police enforcement, bylaw enforcement, collisions, environmental degradation (pollution, loss of farmland, etc), increased infrastructure and emergency service costs resulting from urban sprawl … ?

If you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to read Ryan McGreal’s “The High Cost of Free Parking.

I must admit though, that I’m somewhat at a loss to understand the failure of the LFP to address London’s record-setting year with respect to vehicle/pedestrian incidents, in any of your year-end recaps that I’ve read. Did I miss something?

On another transportation-related note. Many months ago, when I notified you about the proposal that I had put to City Council with respect to a Pedestrian Subcommittee for London, you replied that you had a special interest in pedestrian/bicyclist safety and that you wished to be kept informed. That being the case, you may be interested in the correspondence which is attached (below). In addition to the highly questionable manner in which the proposal was handled by City Council and “city administration”, I note that I haven’t had a single contact from any elected member about this.

Continuing with the same theme, and my efforts to extract a copy of the Commissioners/Pond Mills safety study from London Police Services. I’ve now succeeded in doing so but only with the assistance of the Ontario Privacy Commissioner.

The unsafe intersection of Commissioners and Pond Mills has been the sight of several horrific vehicle/pedestrian incidents and is one that I have focused on as part of my political action towards improved pedestrian safety in the city of London. It employs pedestrian islands and channelization (dangerously rounded corners so that drivers don’t have to stop or even slow down).

Excerpt from Constable Riley’s 2006/05/29 “Police Witness Statement” which I only obtained 2007/01/04 under FOI:
“I have met with FOWLER and monitored this intersection both with him present and on my own…The following are things that I have noted:
– very high traffic intersection both pedestrian and vehicle
– right hand turn, merge lanes for all directions of travel
– vehicles turning right generally come at a quicker rate of speed but are not speeding
– vehicles turning right, if they stop do so in such a place that they are generally in the crosswalk
– there are no indicators for vehicles making right turns that pedestrians are present or about to cross
– for pedestrians wanting to cross any of the intersections, they must first make it to the island on the opposite side of all the right hand turn lanes in order to push the button to cross the major part of the intersection
– once pedestrians are on the islands they are pretty much blind to vehicles and there is a safety risk that vehicle may not see them”

Excerpt from Constable Riley’s 2006/08/10 “Case Summary” which I only obtained 2007/01/04 under FOI:
“FOWLER was contacted…and a request was made to meet with him and go over this complaint in detail at the intersection in question. Intersection was monitored for a couple of days. Very high traffic both pedestrian and vehicles. Crosswalks are not very safe as pedestrians are forced to cross the path of the turning lane to enter on to an island in order to depress the pedestrian walk button.”

In an email to me dated 2006/08/11, Sgt. Thomas O’Brien wrote:
“Constable Riley’s report acknowledges that Commissioners and Pond Mills is a busy intersection for both vehicles and pedestrians. He doesn’t like the configuration of the merge turns and how it impacts pedestrians. He indicates that local MPP were notified of the concerns… I had conversation with Mr. Shane Maguire of the City Traffic. We discussed this intersection and the unusual requirements for pedestrians to cross merge lanes to get to an “island” to further cross. He is fully aware of the concerns. I asked him to look at other similar intersection configurations within the city to see if they’re experiencing similar problems.”

Correspondence re: Proposal for a London Pedestrian Subcommittee


Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:36:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: “Gregory Fowler”
Subject: Update – Pedestrian Safety
CC: “Sandy White”

Mr. Maguire,

In appreciation of your past demonstrated willingness to meet with me and discuss these issues, please be advised,

In response to several complaints by me, Sgt. Tom O’Brien has assigned Const. Riley (661-5545) to investigate the issue of pedestrian safety at the intersection of Commissioners Road East and Pond Mills Road.

I met with Const. Riley at said intersection this morning and discussed the situation with him at length. My impression following the meeting is a good one.

Const. Riley appeared to be very receptive to the perception which I expressed with respect to multiple pedestrian safety issues, and seems to appreciate the dangers imposed by the physical configuration of this particular intersection.

I’ve been promised by Contst. Riley that he will continue to monitor this situation, and that he will endeavour to have Sgt. O’Brien visit the location with him in order to explain/discuss the problems further. He also suggested the possibility of involving MPP Ramal, and he indicated to me that there will be a report available following his investigation.


As a result of my efforts toward the establishment of a Pedestrian Charter and a Pedestrian Subcommittee for the City of London, I have been informed by the Secretary of the Environment and Transportion Committee that the matter has been referred to the Board of Control for it’s consideration and reply.

I encourage you to follow these developments, and invite you to contact me at any time should you wish to discuss them further.


Greg Fowler, Candidate Ward One
962 Eagle Crescent
London, Ontario; N5Z 3H7
(519) 649-0500

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:20:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory Fowler
Subject: Fwd: RE: Your Letter

Mr. Bain,

Thank you for your letter dated 2006/12/19 which summarizes how my proposal for a Pedestrian Subcommittee and a Pedestrian Charter was “handled”.

According to the material which you provided, civic administration’s “review” and “report” simply consisted of the single simple sentence that “Pedestrian safety would be a logical fit with the CSCP mandate and it is therefore recommended that … the CSCP’s duties be amended by adding thereto after the words ‘injury prevention’ the words ‘pedestrian safety’ in order to incorporate the area of pedestrian safety within the mandate of the CSCP.”

Was there any background study? Any consultation with other municipalities? Any consultation with London Police Services or members of the public? Why didn’t “civic administration” contact me? Is this what Mr. Fielding means when he talks about “accessibility”?

Why was the “report” submitted to the Striking Committee meeting? Given the fact that my proposal was referred by ETC to Board of Control, shouldn’t any “report” have gone back to Board of Control and even perhaps ETC, for public review and discussion?

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:41:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory Fowler
Subject: RE: Your Letter
To: “Stein, Brett”

Mr. Stein,

My apology. The letter originated from Mr. Bain, and I apparently did not exercise sufficient care in responding. Thank you for forwarding it to Ms Lysynski.

Greg Fowler

“Stein, Brett” wrote:

Mr. Fowler
I am unaware of any letter regarding pedestrian safety sent to CSCP in my name on December 5, 2006. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your email to Heather Lysynski, who after reading all the attached emails, seems to be your contact on this subject.

Brett Stein
Manager of Licensing and Elections
City of London
(519) 661-2500 x 5884

From: Gregory Fowler []
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:29 PM
To: Stein, Brett
Cc: Caranci, Roger
Subject: Your Letter

Mr. Stein,

Thank you for copying me your 2006/12/05 letter to CSCP which indicates that the issue of pedestrian safety has been incorporated within the mandate of that committee.

It strikes me as being highly inappropriate to have taken this action, given the fact that I’ve been awaiting a response to my proposal for a Pedestrian Committee since last May.

Has staff reported back to Board of Control? Has a decision been made with respect to my proposal?

Greg Fowler

Subject: RE: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:59:17 -0400
From: “Lysynski, Heather”
To: “Gregory Fowler”

My apologies, just what has been happening until this point.

Heather Lysynski
Committee Secretary
City Clerk’s Office
519-661-2500 x 4856

From: Gregory Fowler []
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:40 PM
To: Lysynski, Heather
Subject: RE: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee

Ms Lysynski,

> Pedestrian safety issues continue to be addressed by the
> Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee.

Is this the response to my proposal for a Pedestrian Committee that I’ve been waiting for, or simply an explanation of how things have been done up until now?

Greg Fowler, Candidate Ward One

Subject: RE: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:25:40 -0400
From: “Lysynski, Heather”
To: “Gregory Fowler”

Mr. Fowler,

In response to your inquiry, the Bicycle Advisory Committee was established with the mandate of assisting with the finalization of the Bicycle Master Plan, after which it would be integrated with the Transportation Advisory Committee. The Bicycle Master Plan has been completed, the Bicycle Advisory Committee has been disbanded and the terms of reference for the Transportation Advisory Committee have been amended to include representation from the cycling community. Pedestrian safety issues continue to be addressed by the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee.

Thank you,

Heather Lysynski
Committee Secretary
City Clerk’s Office
519-661-2500 x 4856

Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:20:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: “Gregory Fowler”
Subject: ETC Comments
To: “W. J. Bud Polhill”


With respect to your remarks during the last ETC that “maybe if it was safer more people would ride a bike” and “I can understand a bicycle on the road but they have to have their own space.”

Perhaps, if you’re as concerned about the safety of alternate modes of transportation as your comments would suggest, you’ll explain to me why my proposal for a Pedestrian Committe was sloughed off to BoC and from there
to staff? And why my inquiry about the Bicycle Committee was simply ignored?

Greg Fowler, Candidate Ward One.

Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:25:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: “Gregory Fowler”
Subject: RE: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee
To: “Lysynski, Heather”

Ms Lysynski,

I’m aware of the fact that BoC tossed my proposal for a Pedestrian Committee to staff like it was a hot potato, but can you explain to me why I’ve had no response to my inquiry about the disbandment of the Bicycle Committee?

Greg Fowler, Candidate Ward One.

Subject: RE: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:29:18 -0400
From: “Lysynski, Heather”
To: “Gregory Fowler”

Mr. Fowler:

Your communication was referred to the Board of Control for its consideration. The ETC report will be going to the Municipal Council meeting on Monday (June 12th).

Hope this helps.


Heather Lysynski
Committee Secretary
City Clerk’s Office
661-2500 x 4856

From: Gregory Fowler []
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:23 PM
To: Lysynski, Heather
Subject: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee

Ms Hlysynski,

Since I’ve had no response from anyone, and since the minutes of the 2006/05/29 ETC meeting are not yet online, perhaps you’d be kind enough to tell me how my communication (Agenda #9) was dealt with?


Greg Fowler.

Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:45:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gregory Fowler
Subject: Inquiry
CC: Thomas O’Brien ,,,,,,,,

Environment & Transportation Committee
City of London
c/o Heather Lysynski, Committee Secretary

May 17, 2006

Please be advised that I am interested in exploring the possibility of forming a pedestrian committee for the City of London , and the creation of a Pedestrian Charter, similar to those which already exist in the City of Toronto .

I understand from a recent agenda that the bicycle subcommittee has been disbanded. Might I receive some background information about what led to that decision, and whether it might negatively impact upon the creation of a pedestrian committee?

For more than a decade, I have been publicly active in advocating for things like increased police services, walkway lighting, etc. Pedestrian rights is simply the latest extension of that, and is driven by increased public environmental awareness, the city’s adoption of a Transportation Master Plan, the hiring of a TDM Co-ordinator (albeit with an insufficient budget), an aging population, and an alarming increase in the incidence of vehicle/pedestrian collisions.

I am attaching a recent communication to London Police Services which reflects that concern, and I ask that you give it your consideration and hopefully your support as well. I also note the excellent LFP May 16 column by Julie Ryan (“Give pedestrians ‘brake’ they deserve”) and I encourage you to read it if you have not already done so.

In the event that you might be receptive to the formation of a pedestrian committee, any recommendations from you would be very much appreciated.


Mr. Gregory T. Fowler
962 Eagle Crescent
London , Ontario ; N5Z 3H7
(519) 649-0500

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 14:08:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gregory Fowler
Subject: RE: Police Enforcement & Pedestrian Safety
To: Thomas O’Brien

Sgt. O’Brien,

Thank you for your willingness to investigate my complaint.

I note with regret the article in today’s paper (“Cab hits senior in core”; Patrick Maloney; 2006/05/09), and I feel compelled to repeat the same warning that I’ve made many times before. London is headed too much in the same direction as Toronto and other large municipalities have gone, and vehicle/pedestrian incidents are inevitable unless we take aggressive measures to prevent it.

You are quoted as warning that “pedestrians need to be careful crossing city streets” and I have no problem with that. What bothers me is that you never seem to talk about the other side of the coin, and as a result I’m left with the impression that you have a bias against pedestrians.

Mr. Maloney attributes you as saying last month that “For the most part, pedestrians are at fault.”

I witness many incidents in which pedestrians behave in an unlawful and dangerous manner. I first started speaking out against that and other behaviours many years ago, when Chief Faulkner was still a Deputy. It’s one of the reasons that I publicly campaigned for an increased police budget so that more officers could be hired, something that even Chief Faulkner wasn’t doing.

But please. Let’s not try to pretend that drivers don’t share any responsibility for these incidents.

As I reminded you during our recent meeting at City Hall, walking is a natural right. Pedestrians don’t have to be licensed by the province, and the province can’t legislate against it.

Certainly, pedestrians are not at liberty to act with complete disregard. Hence, prohibitions such as R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (4) with which I completely agree.

On the other hand, driving is not a right, it is a privilege (R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 31). And with that privilege, comes the legislated responsibility that drivers do everything possible to be in full control of their vehicles at all times, and those are so numerous that I feel it is unnecessary to cite them.

Until this city starts taking action to curb the seemingly insatiable selfish desire of people to use private automobiles to get to their destinations in the shortest possible time, and to curb our ever-increasing population, vehicle/pedestrian accidents will likely continue to increase. But London Police Services can try to keep it from becoming an epidemic.

I ask you again consider the possibility of conducting sting operations, similar to those which are employed by the Los Angeles Police Department (see:


Greg Fowler, Ward One Municipal Candidate.

Political Salaries

October 6, 2006

  I am entitled to my entitlements.”
– David Dingwall

In today’s paper (“Politicians entitled to their entitlements?”; Victoria Stirling (London); LFP “Letters”; 2006/10/07), a local citizen muses aloud about the financial gulf between politicians and many of the rest of us.

I have long suggested that the salaries of politicians at all levels of government should be directly tied to the minimum wage, or to what those who are on welfare receive. Perhaps then, the politicians would be more cognizant of the plight of those that they profess to serve, as opposed to their own “entitlements.”

As part of my Ward 1 Municipal Campaign, I’ve promised that if elected I will attempt to have bylaw A-9 (which covers salaries and expenses for members of Council) modified in that manner.