• Protecting Water and Farmland in Simcoe County

Mayoral Candidates in Bradford West Gwillimbury Say No to Donations From Developers

By
In Bradford West Gwillimbury
Sep 25th, 2014
0 Comments
1894 Views

by Mark Brosens The Inside Agenda blog 

With a population of about 30,000 people, Bradford West Gwillimbury is a relatively small municipality on the fringe of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). However, the town, located 60 kilometres north of downtown Toronto is growing quickly relative to its size.

According to Bradford West Gwillimbury’s official plan, it is projected have a population of 50,000 by 2026 (two-thirds larger than it is today). This seems to be a very obtainable goal, given that the town sits just outside of the Greenbelt and that much of the land zoned for development to its south is almost completely built-out. In fact, considering that this farming community sits on 200 square kilometres of land (which is slightly larger in area than the former City of Scarborough), this is likely just the beginning of the town’s long-term growth.

In the face of all this coming growth, all the current Bradford West Gwillimbury mayoral candidates have pledged not to take campaign donations from developers. This is a noticeable departure from many other municipal elections in the GTA.

York University Political Science Professor Robert MacDermid examined the campaign donations to GTA municipal politicians during the 2006 elections. He found that winning candidates received 54.3 per cent of their funding from developers, compared to 35 per cent for losing candidates. Candidates who court developers seem to have an advantage and MacDermid questions whether these donations influence municipal policy decisions around development.

In Bradford West Gwillimbury, the pledge not to take campaign contributions from developers was initiated by Rob Keffer, who is currently the deputy mayor and is now vying to become mayor. He sent a letter to the other mayoral candidates saying that he would not take contributions from developers or corporations located outside of town, and invited the other candidates to do the same.

“As elected representatives, we’re supposed to be representing the people and the taxpayers that are in our community” Keffer says. “We should be the voice of the people. And I don’t think we want to have any perception of being representatives of corporate interests outside the town. Or anybody who might have some other intentions of how the town will grow, other than the people who are paying the taxes and are residing here right now.”

Incumbent Mayor Doug White has agreed not to take donations from developers, even though he thinks it isn’t the most pressing issue facing the town.

“In my mind, they have no influence whatsoever,” White says. “No one is going to affect their decision making because of a campaign donation. But in my mind, it’s an issue that’s come up before, why even create an issue out of [this by taking donations].”

Hernan Burgos is a first-time candidate for mayor of Bradford West Gwillimbury. He refused to take donations, saying: “I have been volunteering in town for 20 years now and I see how much of an influence that developers have. Especially developers from out of town.”

Funding a Campaign

Ontario’s laws governing municipal election financing make the influence of these contributions even more complicated to understand. Municipal candidates cannot take donations of more than $750 from an individual or company. It is difficult to believe that this is enough money to sway a politician. However, municipal campaign spending caps are low in Ontario, which could influence these calculations. For instance, Bradford West Gwillimbury’s mayoral spending cap is about $25,000 per candidate, meaning that a $750 donation is three per cent of the cap. A few $750 cheques from like-minded interests may make some politicians think differently. But, then again, it’s only $750.

“For a grassroots campaign, that would take 10 donors at $75 averaging each, compared to one corporate sponsor,” Keffer notes. “And I do think it can lead to the thinking of certain candidates that these people have supported me and helped me to get into the position of municipal politics, and there is the possibility that they won’t want to do something that won’t be in their favour.”

“You’d have to be really uncertain,” White replies, “in your own politics and your own mind and why you’re doing this if campaign contributions had any influence on your decision making whatsoever.”

However, contributions can influence municipal elections in other ways. White cautions that clamping down too much on who can donate and what can be donated can have unintended consequences.

“I have to fundraise,” White says. “I just don’t have the financial wherewithal to come up with $25,000 of my own money to run a credible campaign. … If fundraising isn’t part of it, politics will be the domain of the wealthy and the middle income people like me need not apply.”

For his part, Burgos wonders how anyone can finance a slick campaign while staying within the $25,000 spending limit, and whether that means creative expenditure reporting and donations (such as, free computers loaned from businesses) are being used throughout the province.

The Right Way to Grow

Of course, MacDermid’s research asks whether donations influence the way municipalities grow.

White points out that the town’s official plan, calling for 50,000 residents by 2026, predates his mandate, so for him, “the question was never if the growth was coming, it was a question of when and what it was going to be.”

White says he wants Bradford West Gwillimbury to become a balanced municipality. “When I moved to Bradford, Bradford was a place that people sleep at night. And that was it,” White says. “You commuted to your job. You left town if your kids needed swimming lessons. And you left town to buy virtually everything you needed for your family. Bradford is now becoming more of a complete community.”

White wants to push this complete community vision forward by creating an employment hub at the intersection of Highways 400 and 88. White thinks that more local jobs would improve quality of life by shortening commute times. He also notes that the tax revenue the town receives from the commercial and industrial businesses cannot be matched by residential or agricultural taxpayers.

Keffer is advocating for a smart growth agenda, which he describes as growing “not to go too big, too fast, and to spend too much money on infrastructure that you can’t assimilate the population that is coming into the community.”

Keffer worries that in the future a lot of money will be spent on building infrastructure on a larger footprint of land. He points out that the employment corridor at Highways 400 and 88 is three kilometres away from the town of Bradford and seven kilometres away from the village of Bond Head, meaning that a lot of money will be spent connecting those buildings to municipal services, such as sewers.

Keffer argues that development spread widely across Bradford West Gwillimbury will be costly for the municipality to service and will threaten environmentally sensitive land.

“It is worrisome that some of this [prime agricultural] land will be lost to being paved over,” Keffer, a farmer, says.

Burgos says the town breaks down to four groups: 1. senior citizens who are leaving town because of a lack of services for them; 2. families who are happy to move into Bradford, because they can buy a house for $500,000 (a steal in comparison to some Toronto houses); 3. single-income families who are suffering as the cost of housing and rent increases; and 4. young adults who grew-up in Bradford and are unhappy that houses now cost $500,000, when ten years ago they only cost $300,000.

Burgos would like to attract job-creating businesses to town by creating senior-focused communities and building a college campus.

“We still have a small-town mentality,” Burgos says. “But we need to understand that we’re now competing globally.”

Would the three visions of the mayoral candidates in Bradford West Gwillimbury be that different if developers were contributing to the campaigns? It’s hard to say. Given that the contours of the development debate there are similar to the those in debates in other growing communities,  it’s difficult to tell if getting developer contributions out of the mayoral race really alters the conversation.

Does it Matter?

Ultimately, where does this end? Everyone has interests and when should we consider one set of interests to be damaging to the common good? For instance, should candidates refuse contributions from businesses as well? Wealthy people could also influence mayoral races due to many of the same factors, so should they be able to donate?

White is likely correct when he says that this isn’t an issue brought up at the doorsteps. But should it be?

Leave a Reply

Commenters must post under real names. AWARE Simcoe reserves the right to edit or not publish comments. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *