The 'R' stands for Reliable

If you haven't checked your mailbox since Friday, make sure you do so before the weekend finishes. You will find a pamphlet outlining some open houses coming up over the next week to learn more about the options being considered for London's bus rapid transit (BRT) system.

Back of the brochure delivered to households this past Friday.

On a personal note, I had the pleasant surprise to discover comments that I had made at a public information meeting in December about the need for rapid transit appear on the back of the pamphlet! Seeing this inspired me to further explain the importance of implementing this method of mass transit, and I'll use our household as an example.

Our family has one car for two working adults, and we have a child in daycare. My wife takes London Transit to and from work most of the time and drops our daughter off in the morning, and I drive to and from work most of the time and pick our daughter up in the afternoon. While both of our workplaces are near a bus route, transfers downtown create long waits and only worsens during rush-hour traffic.  

It normally takes my wife 50 to 60 minutes to get home on a roughly 10 km journey, when it shouldn't be more than a 30-minute bus trip; however, heavier traffic and a meandering bus route through neighbourhoods double her commute home. She finishes work at five o'clock, but would have to leave work a few minutes early to catch a bus and get home by quarter to six, and typically has to wait 20 minutes after work to catch her bus to get home shortly after six. My commute of about 6.5 km would take 30 minutes by bus (it's typically 12 to 15 minutes by car), but I would either arrive at work 20 minutes early or 5 minutes late; on the way home (I finish at four o'clock), I would leave 5 minutes early or have to wait 20 minutes for a bus, getting home at about ten to five.

Map of where people reported to live, work, and go to school at the December 2017 public information centre for Shift.

We both have the goal of getting to and from work without the use of a single-occupied vehicle, and having dedicated lanes for bus rapid transit (therefore making the system "rapid") will ensure that schedules remain punctual and reliable. People who want to take public transit only really ask for comfort and reliability: the major problem that has plagued London's transit system for decades has been unreliable schedules -- a bus that arrives early and leaves early at transfer points, for example, so in essence doesn't arrive at all -- and is a deciding factor for people to drive their car instead of using public transit, myself included. Not being assured that I would be home in time to pick up our daughter from daycare is a huge reason why I still drive to and from work.

Having the backbone of the system in rapid/reliable transit will speed up commute times and increase the efficiency of the feeder routes that cover the rest of the city.  Since the rapid lines will be every 5 minutes (during peak hours) or 10 minutes and feeders being no more than double the rapid line, people will be able to get around much quicker and with minimal transfer times.

Getting home earlier from work would allow us to spend more quality time as a family, and in my wife's case would give her about three more hours at home in a normal week. A more reliable transit system will allow us to continue as a single-vehicle family; otherwise, we would have to explore adding to London's congestion with a second vehicle, while also greatly increasing our household expenditures. We are only one family: multiply our situation by thousands, and the impact of having better transit will easily help young families reduce their need for a second vehicle -- not to mention empty-nesters who want to downsize, single folks who would rather not own (or perhaps can't afford) a vehicle, and a multitude of other family situations where reducing vehicle use is beneficial for them both financially and socially.

When we consider moving forward with the BRT, we already know that it will:

• improve our local economy by getting more people to more places quicker and easier;
• be better for the environment by reducing the number of single-occupied vehicles and directing higher-density development along transit routes; and
• enhance our social lives by giving us more time with the people we love. 

It's a sustainable solution that we can't pass up.

It's not how dense you make it...

All right, everyone, now say it with me!  "It's not how dense you make it; it's how you make it dense."

Good.  Now with that out of the way, let's explore how we can have exciting new buildings in our city that have a positive effect on existing architecture, and more specifically heritage buildings.

By integrating heritage buildings into the design of new builds from the get-go as a foundation for the new construction, a city keeps its character while allowing for higher density.  Responsible and forward-thinking land owners will maintain the buildings on their properties right up until the time of construction, and throughout, in order to preserve the integrity of the existing structures.

Camden Terrace in 1988.  Photo courtesy of the estate of Lois Marshall. 

Lately in London, we have had quite the opposite, from the demolition of 505/507/511 Talbot Street to make way for another uninspired concrete monolith (think of the hideous Renaissance towers on Ridout Street North between King Street and York Street) to the pending destruction of 175/179/181 King Street (although thankfully 183 King Street will remain) for another 30-storey tower.

Now don't get me wrong: we need a proper mix of high-rises, mid-rises, and low-rises in the downtown.  New buildings are always going to be required to regenerate and grow a city.  Making them the right density in the right locations builds a city inwards and upwards, which is what is needed instead of outwards and sprawling.  Urban infill is a good thing and a necessity; however, it has to be done with consideration for the existing built environment and adaptive reuse in the forefront, not as an afterthought.

Camden Terrace (479 to 489 Talbot Street) is under threat of complete demolition.
These row houses have a significant and rare form and style, designed by the renowned London architect Samuel Peters (click for short video on Peters and Camden Terrace).  This brilliant gem in our downtown core tells the story of how our city grew and evolved, and warrants a respectful integration with this infill development.  Instead, the developer prefers to tear the building down to make way for a 9-storey mixed commercial/residential building as the first phase, with plans for two towers (also mixed use) on the north (29 storeys) and south (38 storeys) as the second phase.  Plans also show a three-storey parking garage in the back.

I am a fan of the mixed use: it is ideal for a city where we want people to work and play all within walking distance of their home, which has huge benefits economically, socially, and environmentally.  The design of the nine-storey first phase can easily integrate the entirety of the original row houses, with appropriate modifications to permit the desired entranceway as proposed in the designs.

Camden Terrace in 1987.  Photo courtesy the City of London planning department.

The London Plan aspires for no more aboveground parking, and rightly so:  parking in the inner core start to disappear with driverless cars and rapid transit, and therefore the people who are living and working downtown are less likely to own a vehicle.  The proposal has four levels of underground parking and three levels of aboveground.  In reality, the aboveground parking will become obsolete in the very near future and would be better use of space to expand the nine-storey construction: this keeps the nine-storey portion virtually unchanged (or potentially larger) and allows room for Camden Terrace to remain. Talk about win-win! The investment for the developer and the city will be huge if all phases are built: don't we want this done right for ourselves and for future generations?

Adaptive reuse has become prominent recently with the Cornerstone Building, the London Roundhouse, The Cube, and many more.  Not only does it maintain a city's character, it is also easier on the environment by not sending tonnes upon tonnes of building materials into an already-strained landfill site.  

Camden Terrace must be given designation and maintained in situ, as any needed changes to the buildings can be considered through a heritage alteration permit.  In fact, the London Roundhouse remains in place and will have a tower built behind it: why can't we do the same here?

Heritage needs to have a voice at the table, and be included from the beginning of projects impacting our shared historical buildings.  A mature city values its heritage.  Other mid-sized cities in Ontario have been willing and able to push the creative inclusion of heritage buildings into new developments of various size:  isn't London good enough to have the same?  Shouldn't we demand better for ourselves?

Disastrous dyke design

Last Monday, June 13, a public information centre took place regarding the plans for the West London Dyke Replacement – Phase 3.  (Disappointingly, the files for the latest information centre are not available on the City's Web site.) The display boards showed plans for a replacement of the existing dyke between Rogers Avenue to Carrothers Avenue, an uninspired design that would extend the current sheer cliff constructed in 2007 from the forks of the Thames to Rogers Avenue.

The area of the dyke to be replaced, running from Rogers Avenue north to Carrothers Avenue. (April 2014 aerial photo from City of London)

While many (yours truly included) enjoy the pathway portion of the 2007 reconstruction as a means of recreation and transportation, there is a significant lack of shade (i.e. no trees) and no means of interacting with the river, something that Londoners over and over again have said is a top priority for rejuvenating Askunesippi (AKA "the Thames").  It very much conveys an oudated mindset of constructing the built environment as a "concrete jungle" by dividing humans from the natural environment.  Even the guardrail – aside from being ugly as sin – with its prison-like bars evokes the sensation of separation, as if the river was an exhibit at the zoo.

A view of the West London dyke, with the 2007 replacement visible in upper-right. (February 9, 2013)

As seen in the photo above from 2013, the sloped dyke almost has an amphitheatre vibe to it.  Instead of replacing this slope with a vertical wall, we need an imaginative concept that would allow for citizens to transcend the dyke, perhaps with a stepped design to allow people to walk and sit along the river in a safe and enjoyable manner.  What would it be like to have a concert or play happening on the banks of the river in Harris Park, with the audience taking it in while seated in a stadium-like setting across the water? Sounds like an ideal setting to me!  Isn't that what the "Back to the River" project is supposed to be all about?

Don't get me wrong: the design isn't a complete failure.  I do like the aspects of having a sitting area at the top of the dyke situated at the end of each of the beautiful dead-end streets in Blackfriars akin to the one at the terminus of Rogers Avenue.  The displays also included a variety of options for guardrail that don't include prison bars.

A view of the West London dyke, with the 2007 replacement visible in upper-right and existing guardrail along the right of the photo. (July 8, 2012)

In addition to the shortcomings of the dyke design, current plans include taking down at large number of trees, including some majestic cottonwoods that primarily thrive along rivers and other damp areas.  Removing this canopy coverage is hugely detrimental to the pathway along the river.  While one can understand having to remove the myraid of trees that have grown in the dyke (although it could be argued that trees will hold up a slope better than any man-made construct), removing any along the path will take decades to replace.  Trees do not grow overnight, and need to have their value fully considered and not simply viewed as an obstacle to construction.

Finally, the existing guardrail allows folks to view the river with ease, and also to get up and down the dyke without hiking for kilometres to the nearest access point.  I fully encourage reusing the current style of guardrail, and even better would be to use the current materials: they have a charm unlike any other spot along the pathway and mesh wonderfully with the culturally significant Blackfriars Bridge.

Comments are being accepted until Wednesday, June 22nd, 2016.  This construction project won't only affect the denizens of the Blackfriars neighbourhood, but the population at large: we have a chance to make something beautiful out of something so mundane. Be sure to get comments in by sending to:

Cameron Gorrie, P.Eng, Stantec Consulting Ltd.

600-171 Queens Avenue, London, N6A 5J7

cameron.gorrie@stantec.com

Council haste makes heritage waste

"The wrecking ball cometh."

These words (apparently) bring music to the ears of eight members of London's council, given that they voted against designation of 759 Elizabeth Street (AKA the "Carling Cottage") as a heritage property at the November 10th council meeting, the winning decision in an surprisingly-close 8-7 vote.  A week before at the Planning and Environment Committee meeting on November 2nd, the committee voted 3-2 against designation, with those voting against using flawed logic to guide their decision, including red herrings like the condition of the roof and the outdated furnace as reasons to allow demolition.  The two voting for designation made great arguments for not demolishing the cottage, specifically the historical context of the building and the fact that its orientation predates the surrounding road network.  Not only that, but heritage designation does not preclude applying for a demolition permit.

505 Talbot Street, at left, undergoes deconstruction after the demolition of 507 and 511. (Nov. 11, 2015)

This scenario has played out all too commonly with the current council:  we recently also lost three heritage buildings at 505, 507, and 511 Talbot Street (the building at 511 formerly home to The Shire pub) to be replaced with a very uninspiring skyscraper.  While I fully support intensification when it comes to new developments, councillors would do well to remember the following adage: "It's not how dense you make it, but how you make it dense."  Developing bland concrete blocks at the expense of cherished heritage buildings is reckless and irresponsible.  Unfortunately, only one councillor – Bill Armstrong – voted against the demolition.

To justify the demolition of heritage buildings and endure the resulting loss of history and culture, the structures replacing the existing must provide a positive net benefit to the community.  Unless plans for the new highrise include some beautiful architecture and mixed use, a net benefit will not be in the cards for the Talbot properties. It is certainly not the case at 759 Elizabeth where the developers are proposing to build a duplex in place of the cottage.

The Carling Cottage, as seen in the London Free Press on Nov. 2, 2015.

Now, the Carling Cottage may not be a grand mansion or the home of anybody famous, but it provides an impeccable example of vernacular architecture.  The cottage was built in the "Regency" style, as outlined in this description of the property from the 2010 MLS listing (462279):

A unique Ontario cottage purchased by the owners great grandfather from Sir John Carling at the time of the Wolsey Barracks purchase in about 1878. “Carling Cottage” as it is known, is one of the first brick homes in the district built in 1827. Initially it faced Adelaide St which was the concession rd at the time and the carriage house was located on Oxford St, now demolished. It has been maintained in the style period having original pumpkin pine flrs, fireplace, large 6x6 Georgian windows, many original glass, however the whole house has been refurbished, which inc. the fireplace, wiring, new plumbing, shingles(07) new sub-floors (kit, bthrm and mudrm) and the large covered front porch (30.8ft x 6.2ft) to its original design where you can sit in one of 4 black rockers. If you appreciate a perfect peaceful piece of London history this is the cottage for you. Large 8 x 12 storage cottage also located on 78 x 150 ft lot(exclude chandelier in DR)

This property is steeped in history, originally belonging in London Township.  Charles Henry and his family lived there, on lands owned by Sir John Carling of brewery fame, to work the farm. The house's front orients toward the forks of the Thames, which would have provided a wonderful view over the farm fields leading into the town of London. Years passed and the city grew up around this place as it endured for over 150 years. 

Preserving vernacular buildings is just as important as keeping Eldon House and other large, elaborate homes: we don't save nearly enough buildings that represent the working-class person of the day.  A good example of this is the number of plantation houses saved and restored as compared to the slave quarters, even though the humble slave quarters were lived in and represent the lives of many more people.  We should pay special attention to and cherish those rare small buildings from the past that provide insight into the lives of everyday folks.

I applaud the seven councillors who voted to save the Carling Cottage, and thank them for their serious consideration of this important home.  The members of the community who supported keeping the house intact also require recognition for trying to conserve an important property. 

Everyone needs to know that the greenest building is the one already built. Unfortunately, the demolition equipment has arrived and deconstruction is expected to begin tomorrow (December 3), so we must bid farewell to the Carling Cottage.  Maybe you can pick up a piece of history from the rubble and pay tribute to the past inhabitants.

Common courtesy for your neighbours

I have heard many ideas and concerns from Ward 6 residents over the last eight months of my campaign. There’s one issue though that has come up at every single debate, and more frequently than others at the door. That issue is student housing.

Londoners are proud of our college and our university. We know how many people they teach and employ; however, they can sometimes be a source of neighbourhood conflict for those living nearby. Ward 6 residents have reported untidy lots, buildings with heritage value left in disrepair, and safety concerns with large numbers of people sharing a single-family home.

How do we find a balance between making sure there is affordable housing for students and young people, while maintaining the character of our neighbourhoods? There are a number of things to consider.

First, there is legal precedent that more than three unrelated people sharing single home makes it a lodging house. Lodging houses are not allowed in R1 residential zones, where only single detached homes are allowed. Some neighbourhood groups would like to see this implemented in London, and in general, I support the idea. Not everywhere is an R1 zone, so lodging houses would still be allowed in higher density residential areas – places that are more likely to have the services, like transit, to support the extra people.

Fixing transit in London will also help our neighbourhoods over time. If students can get quickly and efficiently across town by bus or bike, more will be willing to live farther away from campus. That means they will get to know the city beyond the campus bubble better, and hopefully start to think of London as home. It also means that housing all of the city’s students won’t fall to just a few neighbourhoods in the same way it does now.

In many cases though, students or tenants aren’t the problem at all. Some landlords neglect their properties, putting in the minimum amount of time and money it takes to find renters. This is where we see uncut lawns, buildings in disrepair, and where we start to worry about the safety of some of our student neighbours.

I hope there aren't any properties as bad as this in your neighbourhood!

Some of these landlords aren’t concerned at all about how their properties are reflecting on the community because it isn’t their community. Many live in Toronto or even further away, and own property in London either because their children were once students here, or merely see it as a good investment. We need to make sure these property owners do their part, even if they aren’t around to live with the results.

Most of the things neighbours complain about are covered under existing by-laws, whether it’s maintaining the yard, disposing of waste, or making sure that fire safety regulations are observed. The trouble is that most of these by-laws are only enforced when a complaint gets filed.  

London can do better at holding absentee landlords accountable, for the sake of both long-term residents and renters. We can increase inspections under the Residential Rental Licensing program, and also step up by-law enforcement in targeted areas near campus.

All of these measures will help maintain the character of our neighbourhoods, while keeping all residents safe and allowing them to enjoy their community.

Providing the necessities

This Thanksgiving weekend, Londoners sat down to share a meal and to appreciate the fall harvest, and their homes, families, and friends.  Unfortunately, not everybody in our society have the privilege of a home.

Also this weekend (on Friday, October 10), people in London and around the world marked World Homeless Action Day. The focus of the London event, in Victoria Park, was to bring attention to the need for affordable housing and related supports in our city.

At World Homeless Action Day in London

The event was a powerful reminder that homelessness affects all Londoners. While it is the most urgent for those in need of housing, for others it can affect quality of life and confidence in our community.

Last week, I met with Abe Oudshoorn, chair of the London Homeless Coalition, to talk about the details of housing needs in London.

There are approximately 1000 homeless people in London, thought the number can be hard to nail down. That includes not only those who are sleeping on the streets or in shelters, but those who don’t have a permanent place to stay, often bouncing around between the couches and floors of friends or family members. Not all could stay in shelters anyway, because only about 400 shelter beds are available in London.

There are a few things to worry about when aiming to end homelessness. One is finding a new place to live for people who don’t have one. The rest is about prevention – mainly helping prevent people from being evicted or from having their utilities shut off. The province used to do a lot more in this regard. The former Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) helped people on Ontario Works (OW) or the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) in exactly these circumstances. When Ontario eliminated it in 2012, it left a gap in these services of more than $4M out of the $9M budget.

London established the Housing Stability Fund to help meet this need. It provides emergency assistance to people facing eviction or utility shut-offs, or who need to move. In the fund’s first year, the demand for these services was double what had been budgeted. That big a difference is unsustainable, and takes resources from other city supports for those in need.

While a lot of this sounds bleak, I also drew some encouragement from my meeting with Mr. Oudshoorn. Some of you may have seen a video being shared on social media lately about Utah’s efforts to end homelessness by – wait for it – giving homeless people homes. The state found that, not only was this approach the most compassionate, it was actually cost effective. Homeless people require a huge amount of resources from our law enforcement and medical systems. Utah found that giving homeless people an apartment and access to a social worker didn’t just make sense in terms of how we should treat fellow citizens; it also made sense for their budget. Portland, Oregon has taken a similar approach, placing more than 12 500 people in permanent housing.

London would never try anything that bold or progressive though, right? Actually, we’re already doing it. London has a pilot project to move 50 homeless who have needed the most resources – in terms of policing and emergency room (ER) visits – into stable housing. It makes financial sense, too. It costs $45 per day to provide space for someone in an emergency shelter. To provide them with an apartment costs $200 per month on top of the $375 covered by OW, so after less than a week the apartment wins out. 

An individual in the pilot had over 200 police incidents in the year before being housed, and now only has had 7.  Another had over 100 questionable ER visits - each visit costs the healthcare system about $700 to see someone - and has now has only been twice for legitimate reasons. This pilot project is something I was thrilled to hear about, and something I think all Londoners should be proud of and encourage to enact here.  Shelters can then become re-housing organizations to get people quickly off the streets and into permanent housing.

On City Council, I will take an approach to homelessness and affordable housing that considers people’s health and dignity, as well as what’s best for our city as a whole. That approach will include: 

• An expansion of London’s plan to move homeless people into stable housing so that everyone experiencing homelessness is given this opportunity. This expansion would come after a thorough review of the pilot program’s results to make sure it works the way intended;
• Establishing an appropriate annual increase for the Housing Reserve Fund that will allow the fund to retain its value;
• Advocating for a new provincial program to replace the cancelled Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit;
• Supporting the creation of a Housing Development Corporation to maximize new affordable housing units.

It’s time we approached housing and homelessness in our city in a way that makes sense, and that puts people first. A society is only as prosperous as its most vulnerable members.

Open. Accountable. Accessible.

I have been working hard during the election period to tell you what I stand for. My platform has been on the Web site since August and expanded on the planks in this blog. I've included it in brochures, spoken about it at all-candidates meetings, and spoken with you about it at your doors.

What happens a year or two into the council term when there are issues we haven't anticipated? How can you know now how I will deal with the questions of the future?

Here’s the answer: I will talk with you about them.

I have spoken with you about your priorities and concerns for London at your doors for over six months now. While I won't be at the doorstep as frequently after October 27, I will continue to engage with Ward 6 residents and with all Londoners in a number of ways.

First, I will hold regular office hours and return your calls and emails in a timely fashion. That’s easy to promise, and you can be reasonably assured I will do so, because I’m doing it already. A wide selection of London organizations send surveys to council candidates to make sure voters know their positions on key issues like poverty or the arts. Here’s a selection of just a few: from a student engagement effort to a local magazine, from the London Arts Council and the Middlesex-London Health Unit, to a local blogger. I've responded to each and every survey thoughtfully. I believe I’m the only Ward 6 candidate who has responded to every survey sent out.

Secondly, I will continue to meet regularly with constituents. I support the idea also raised by several candidates in other wards of establishing wards councils. A diverse group of Ward 6 residents representing arts, business, faith, and community groups would meet regularly with me as councillor to advise on issues facing our ward and our city. Regular townhall meetings where anyone can participate and share their thoughts will also be a great way to listen to residents.

Finally, I will listen to the experts. Throughout this campaign, I have been meeting with people who have real experience providing services to Londoners, services like policing, fighting fires, providing childcare, and working with homeless people. By listening to people with firsthand knowledge, I gain a perspective you can't get only from reading reports and policy papers. I will continue to seek out this kind of advice one elected.

I want to thank everyone who has shared their own concerns and priorities with me already, whether at the door, on the phone, or at community events. I encourage you to get in touch with any questions and comments, good or bad, both before the election and after. I've talked a lot in my platform about integrity. One of the things integrity means is that I will keep listening, even if I think I have the answer.

A partnership opportunity that can't be missed

Post-secondary education is one of London’s greatest strengths. Western University and Fanshawe College are major employers in our city and students contribute millions more to the local economy through spending on rent, food, entertainment, and all the other necessities of life. In many ways, we tend to undervalue the part they play now and could play in the future. I believe there are three ways we can strengthen the partnership with Western and Fanshawe to make London better for everyone.

First, I have already discussed in Metro News London how the city could be looking to local experts at our post-secondary schools to carry out research and find innovative solutions to city issues. Occasionally when the city needs to test the feasibility of an idea, or wants to know what other cities are doing on the same issue, it relies on expensive outside consultants to produce a report. One example is the London’s Transportation Master Plan, produced by a Toronto consultant group.

Sometimes we do need expertise beyond what’s available on city staff. Why not partner with our world-class university and college to do this kind of work where possible? We can invite students and researchers to focus on practical ideas and solutions for our city. Imagine the top minds living in our city investigating how we can improve industry, environment, and citizen engagement in London, and how city government can make a difference in those areas.

Secondly, I recently blogged about the need to foster entrepreneurship in our city as a way to boost economic growth. I mentioned the roles the that local agencies have to play in this area, and Western and Fanshawe are key pieces of the puzzle. We can look at the kind of talent our schools are producing and gear short-term subsidies to start-up businesses in those fields.

We need to make it easier to start and maintain a small business in London for everybody, not just grads; however, this is one way to keep some of our top talent at home. I've seen this kind of approach do great things in Waterloo Region, where I lived as a student at the University of Waterloo. The area has a thriving tech sector because of talent produced at its universities.

Recently, the province announced funding for Campus-Linked Accelerators, to build on innovation and entrepreneurial programs at Southwestern Ontario's colleges and universities. This includes Western's Entrepreneurship, Engagement, Economic Development (E3), which will act as “a hub for educational, community, and private-sector partners and the foundation for nurturing a vibrant on-campus ecosystem of entrepreneurship”. It’s great news, so we must ensure that the city is at the table to build strong links between Western innovation and entrepreneurship and the rest of our city.

The third way London can do a better job of collaborating with our schools has to do with integrating them into city life. We need to treat students as fellow Londoners and help them to see themselves that way.

Recently, two of my opponents called for Western’s Homecoming celebrations to be cancelled. While I absolutely sympathize with the frustrations of Broughdale residents, this is the wrong approach. Rather than shutting down the celebration, I’d like to see the city get involved in planning it, and not just in terms of law enforcement. 

What if Homecoming took over Victoria Park for the weekend, or a few blocks of commercial area were closed to traffic for the celebration? Alcohol consumption could be contained and monitored. It would also encourage more long-term Londoners to come out and join the celebration, and bring their positive influence. It would mean be a boost for nearby businesses too. If we look at Homecoming like another city festival, we can plan the kind of celebration everyone will be proud of.

Helping Fanshawe bring more students downtown, to study in the Kingsmill’s building, is also a step in the right direction when it comes to integrating them into city life. These students will be working and learning where so many other Londoners also work. More interaction will lead to better relationships.

Western and Fanshawe are huge advantages to have in London. Let's start treating students like fellow citizens with something to contribute rather than just a problem to be managed.

My platform for a better London

The ideas a potential councillor proposes and the values he or she represents will be the most important information for citizens as they cast their ballots this Fall. To make sure my ideas and values are clear, I posted my platform at Bloxam.ca/platform.

Since the Spring, I have been visiting Ward 6 residents at their homes to introduce myself. I've also been listening to them about what is important to them in their neighbourhoods and for the city of London as a whole. I’ve also attended community meetings and events, and met with many of the decision makers in the area. All of this has helped me to refine and focus the priorities I already had when I entered the race to be the next councillor for Ward 6.

I chose to organize my platform based on three key themes that I believe Londoners are looking for from their next council – Integrity, Prosperity, and Sustainability. Of course, there’s a lot more to the platform than just a few key words. I’ll expand on some of the individual ideas here on this blog over the next few weeks. For now, let me tell you a bit about what I mean by each of these words. 

Integrity 

If there's one thing I've heard above all else when speaking with Londoners, it's that the citizens of our city have lost faith in their elected officials.  I promise to be open, accountable, and accessible to my constituents.  I will work with my council colleagues to come to a consensus when making decisions, instead of continuing the "us vs. them" mentality of the past.

Prosperity

Our city has had a tough time during the recent economic downturn.  We need to get more folks into fulfilling careers and encourage business growth in London.  There is no easy answer and there are many pieces to the puzzle, but working together we can achieve our goals to make London a place to live, work, play, and stay.

Sustainability 

Sustainability means ensuring that decisions take into account economy, community, and environment without placing higher priority for one over the others. It also means ensuring that the prosperity we build together lasts over the long term. In my business career and volunteer commitments, I have always striven to make sustainable decisions. This is a practice that I will continue as your councillor.


I hope you’ll take some time to read through the platform on my Web site, and to get in touch with any questions and comments, good or bad. One of the things integrity means is that I keep listening, even if I think I have the answer.

Please also continue to visit the blog as I expand on some of these points and talk about what the next council’s job will be when it comes to making them a reality.

Happiness in every step

With spring well underway (finally!), folks will start getting more active outdoors with the fair weather.  Most people don't realize that physical activity, even something as simple as walking, not only helps keep a healthy body but also strengthens the mind.  As the old adage goes, if you don't have your health, you don't have much — this goes for both physical and mental.

Our society's affection with the sedentary lifestyle appears to intensify with each passing year:  just think about how many screens most families have in their homes (and no exception for yours truly) — between computer monitors, televisions, mobile phones, and tablets — and one sees more opportunity to sit and stare at moving pictures instead of interacting with the surrounding "real world".  While productivity and entertainment delivered via screens certainly has its place to satisfy our brain's desires, we all need to remember that our bodies also deserve proper interaction.

According to Ravi Gupta, a Londoner who established the fundraiser called Hike for Happiness, "Physical exercise, like walking, is one of the most important aspects of mental-health treatment. Londoners are lucky to have access to over a 100 kilometres of hiking trails and walking paths through parks, woods, and along rivers. Hiking and walking can truly contribute to one’s happiness and wellness."

Mr. Gupta hopes to see Hike for Happiness achieve the following:

1. Raise money for mental-health patients to enable those with limited financial means to be able to continue treatment.
2. Encourage more people to show their support for family, friends, colleagues, and even strangers with mental illnesses. 
3. Encourage more business to support their employees with mental illnesses. 

The first Hike for Happiness takes place on Saturday, June 7, 2014, with two hikes starting at 9:00 AM.  Participate in a one-hour walk or a two-hour hike, with both taking place at the Medway Valley Trail.

If you like to walk, or want to see spring burst forth in the Medway Valley, register for this event and help a worthwhile cause at the same time.

To learn more, check out these links:

• Web site: hikeforhappiness.ca
• Facebook: facebook.com/HikeForHappiness
• Twitter: twitter.com/HikeForHappines

Ward 6 candidate Mike Bloxam exceeds fundraising target

As of today, the first campaign fundraising milestone of $2000 was raised a week before the deadline.  Thank you to everyone who has supported me so far!

-------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Ward 6 candidate Mike Bloxam exceeds fundraising target

London business owner Mike Bloxam, the frontrunner in the race for the Ward 6 council seat, has established his early start by raising more than the campaign’s $2000 fundraising target well ahead of its March 31 deadline. 

Bloxam thanked supporters on Tuesday for helping him surpass the goal before his campaign officially kicks off with a launch party this weekend.

“I want to express sincere thanks to all those who have supported me so far. I greatly appreciate the encouragement and advice I've received already, and look forward to the campaign ahead.”

In addition, he will gather with supporters at 2:00 this Sunday, March 30 at the Alibi Roadhouse to officially start the campaign. More than 50 people are registered to attend, and the event is open with   registration required via the campaign Web site at www.bloxam.ca. Bloxam plans to step up canvassing efforts following Sunday’s event to listen to more of Ward 6 residents’ vision for our city.

“I'm running because I believe strongly that living in a community means giving back: it is a belief and practice that I will continue through civic duty. I plan to share that belief with Ward 6 residents, and to speak with them about the things they value in our shared community.”

In the meantime, he has set a new campaign fundraising target of $5000 by May 31.

- 30 -

Mike Bloxam is running to be your next councillor for Ward 6 in London, Ontario. He aspires for a better London that is an ideal place to live, work, play, and stay.

Campaign hotline: 519-518-2273 | E-mail: mike@bloxam.ca | Web site: www.bloxam.ca | Twitter: @Mike_Bloxam

Throwing the hat in the ring

This afternoon, I declared officially my candidacy in the Ward 6 council race.  You can read the press release below, and please share it widely!

-------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Mike Bloxam declares candidacy in Ward 6 council race

Business owner and active community volunteer, Mike Bloxam, declared his candidacy for London’s Ward 6 council seat on Tuesday.

Already familiar with City Hall by serving on council’s Advisory Committee on the Environment, Bloxam feels he has more to contribute. He is passionate about London, his hometown, and believes strongly that living in a community means giving back – a belief and practice that he will continue through civic duty.

Bloxam wants to see community-focused urban planning and will apply his own experience to the office.

“My vision is a sustainable London where people want to live, work, play, and stay,” Bloxam said. “Striking the right balance between economics, community life, and the environment is critical to a successful city. My experience as a business owner and volunteer in London has helped me find that balance, showing me first-hand it is absolutely achievable.”

Bloxam owns and operates SunTap Technologies, a company specializing in renewable energy. Launching and sustaining a small business has given him crucial skills to represent Ward 6 on council. Mentoring co-op students through his local company has helped to convince Bloxam of the need to create opportunities for young people in our city.

“Instead of always looking outside our city for business investment, we need to encourage home-grown small businesses – not only to survive, but to thrive. These local companies will create jobs here and help London prosper,” he explained. “Mentoring and financial support are two ways to keep our highly-educated graduates in London.  We can foster their sense of entrepreneurship by giving them what they need.”

Serving for 15 years as a volunteer at the London Food Bank, where demand continues to rise, also strengthened his resolve to seek a council seat. He donates his time to various other community organizations, such as ReForest London and All-Breed Canine Rescue. Given the level of need in our city, Bloxam feels he can have even more impact, and improve quality of life for Londoners, as part of a more focused council.

“London can be better because council can do better,” Bloxam said. “My commitment to represent the citizens and businesses of Ward 6 is to ensure that all views have the chance to be heard. I will listen to Londoners' ideas and issues – as I have in my career and community life – to help me make the right decisions for Ward 6 and our city as a whole.”   

Bloxam will celebrate his candidacy with a launch party in March, to be announced at bloxam.ca.

- 30 -

Mike Bloxam is running to be your next councillor for Ward 6 in London, Ontario. He aspires for a better London that is an ideal place to live, work, play, and stay.

Campaign hotline: 519-518-2273 | E-mail: mike@bloxam.ca | Web site: www.bloxam.ca | Twitter: @Mike_Bloxam

Changing how London moves

In a couple of months, a significant change to the way Londoners get around the city will arrive.  While the first choice for people to move from point A to point B should be "active" transportation (walking, cycling, etc.), followed closely by public transit (the city bus in London's case), most elect to hop into their personal vehicle and drive to their destination.  Starting in April, drivers will have a new option when it comes to automobiles:  Community CarShare has announced they will open in London.  (Read their announcement)

Haven't heard of Community CarShare?  Ontario's first non-profit co-operative car-share service started in Kitchener-Waterloo in 1998, and essentially enhances the traditional car rental with the flexibility of using (and therefore paying for) the use of a vehicle only when you need it.

At the December meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE), we received a presentation from one of the co-op's representatives.  He told us that a car-share vehicle removes 5 to 15 cars from the road.  This means less traffic congestion and lower pollution levels as a city adopts the concept.  In addition, he informed us that the average car-share member drives 50% less with a shared vehicle versus owning one (they will choose to walk or take other transportation for close trips), translating into more exercise and improved health.

Many families will debate how "big" they should go:  purchasing the "largest" vehicle possible to suit all needs means having to take a mini-van or SUV everywhere, while its main purpose in size serves to deliver children to their activities (such as hockey, with all the equipment that needs transporting along with the player!), yet proves overkill for most other tasks.  A car-share program allows a family to choose the best vehicle to fit the needs of the day:  perhaps a sedan for groceries on Tuesday, a mini-van to transport to the arena or the performance venue on the weekends, or an extended-cab pick-up truck to move furniture for the university-bound student twice a year.

The average annual cost of owning and operating a vehicle in Ontario sits at about $10 500, while the average CarShare member will spend $1200 per year, including gasoline, insurance, and other incidentals.  Instead of purchasing that "second vehicle" that rarely gets used or exceeds the majority of a family's needs, a household can spend a tenth of the yearly costs for the same service and convenience with a shared vehicle.

The Community CarShare representative informed those of us at ACE that they only ask from the City of London a $150 000 line of credit for the next five to ten years (as a fallback: there is no plan to use the money unless necessary), and some subsidized or in-kind public parking spots.

Think your neighbourhood could use a shared vehicle?  Get in contact and flood them with requests:  you will put your street on their radar and may get your very own community-owned vehicle.