Of the 15 delegations who addressed council last night on the Official Plan update and natural heritage strategy, only one appeared to be accompanied by a member of the local constabulary.
While plainclothes Sgt. Ray Gordon did not specifically acknowledge he was there to keep an eye on Matt Soltys, I noticed when the Hanlon Creek Business Park protestor left at the intermission so did the sarge.
It was more difficult to tell who was less comfortable with Soltys' delegation.
"My name is Matt," Soltys said on approaching the microphone. "It's been a while since I've been here. This is a bit awkward."
Soltys urged councillors to emphasize redevelopment of brownfield sites, which he called "a toxic legacy" for future generations.
Other than a couple of jabs about councillors being disinterested in feedback from the public, Soltys' presentation was uneventful.
I wonder what the additional, but not required, security cost us?
I can't really believe there was special Guelph Police security for a presentation to City Council by Matt Soltys. I'd have to wonder whether there was a request from Council. More significant for me are indications elsewhere in town that CSIS has been in town this week "visiting" the homes of activists engaged in preparations for the G20 summit.
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | May 21, 2010 at 10:51 AM
You don't mean to tell me that CSIS is on the trail of those nice kids who are self described anarchists, who illegally occupied the HCBP lands, who willfully damaged private property, spat on public officials and disrupted the Olympic torch relay!?
I know we've had 2 bomb scares in Guelph but really!!
I think CSIS just wants to be Facebook friends with them.
Lets hold up on spilling any more ink on these social misfits.
Posted by: Molly | May 21, 2010 at 02:54 PM
Just to echo what Molly wrote, I noticed that there are posters around the town saying that local "activists" (e.g. social anarchists) will be trying to disrupt the upcoming G-20 meeting. Given the recent bombings in Ottawa and what has happened in Guelph recently, I think that our security services should be keeping an eye on these guys.
Posted by: Bill Hulet | May 21, 2010 at 05:55 PM
Well good for Mr. Soltys to attend the meeting and speak as a delegation. This is a a form of "good" activism. Spray painting and land occupation don't work. At least last night, he had the microphone for 10 minutes to say whatever he wanted in a rationale and reasoned way to a captive audience. I hope the councillors listened.
The police presence was a bit much, but then again, with the history of the group he's associated with, and the fact they've said their fight is not over, I can understand why someone was there.
Posted by: Bill D. | May 21, 2010 at 06:13 PM
On preview: this is the kind of thing that gives anarchism the skewed rep it has. I bet few of the activists - or many of their detractors for that matter, have ever read Emma Goldman, William Godwin, Proudhon, Chomsky et al, - all of whom have condemned violence.
Throwing petrol bombs through bank windows has as little to do with anarchism as terrorism has to do with Islam. There are always be misguided people who will distort their own belief systems and ideas into something dangerous and grotesque. The history of ideas is full so such transmogrifications. I challenge you to find one ideology that hasn't been tainted as such.
All anarchism is, at its core, is a political ideology that opposes any hierarchically structured institutions, which they argue are all inherently coercive. But thanks to the media simplifying our perceptions and a political system intentionally designed to divide us, 'anarchism' has become little more than a pejorative slur.
(A positive example of a non-hierarchically structured organization is found in GNU/Linux communities. For eg, Debian Linux has no leader and is, by their admissions "a non-profit collection of individuals". So successful is Debian's model that corporate entities, like Ubuntu/Canonical base their Linux distributions off of it.)
Posted by: kheimbuch | May 21, 2010 at 06:25 PM
A good read kheimbuch. Thanks.
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | May 21, 2010 at 06:49 PM
tks Edward.
Posted by: kheimbuch | May 21, 2010 at 10:48 PM
kheimbuch:
While I love the open source movement as much as anyone (I'm a paid up member of the Free Software Foundation), didn't Alexander Berkman (Emma Goldman's lover) try to assassinate Henry Clay Frick? I've read Emma Goldman's autobiography and I'm pretty sure that she supported Berkman's actions.
Having said that, Frick was a colossal SOB who killed his share of working men, so I don't think it is fair to compare him to Karen Farbridge. ;-)
Posted by: Bill Hulet | May 21, 2010 at 11:24 PM
In response to Bill D's comments:
You say that me speaking to council is an example of "good activism," and that "Spray painting and land occupation don't work."
With all due respect, my personal experience has taught me differently. I have spoken to council and other committees in the past, and met with city officials over the years too. These experiences are disempowering because it is clear that it really doesn't matter what you say, they just do whatever they are going to do anyway. I went to that recent council meeting not to plead my case and expect them to do anything about it, but to point out conflicts of interest in the political and development system, and ask them:
"If city staff clearly has the real power, and developers are granted disproportionate and unaccountable influence in things like the Natural Heritage Strategy, why should anyone have faith in the public process?"
I was met with silence and blank stares, and I even followed up with an email asking them the same question, but no one offered an answer.
In my experience, spraypainting and land occupation have been way, way more effective than most other things I've been involved with. The HCBP was occupied last summer and work was directly stopped. More than any letters and speeches, that occupation made a tangible impact on the land. Hundreds of people experienced a life-changing relationship with a beautiful piece of land under threat. We won a significant, if not unprecedented victory in Superior Court on top of that. Further, tens of thousands of people know about at least some of the issue, which was not the case when we were just going to council meetings etc., or even doing press conferences etc. before the occupation.
Posted by: Matt | May 22, 2010 at 03:40 PM
Sorry, one more thing, Bill's spraypainting reference is about how in 2006 I made a stencil with a bulldozer and the word 'ecoterrorist' below. I got caught, but justice Norman Douglas gave me an absolute discharge on 4 counts of mischief, saying I was "one of the good guys," and basically congratulated me for doing what I do.
Posted by: Matt | May 22, 2010 at 03:44 PM
Way to go Matt! Your actions over the years have been noticed - including the numerous times that following the rules has led to gross inaction. Spray painting - made me learn about you. Occupation - made me come and stand with you.
Spray Painting and Occupation really do work and history proved this -- to end the Vietnam war. The misguided people are those who have taken the narrow view that everything will just be fixed while they sit on their couches and watch TV.
I believe that the process is deeply flawed when what happened last summer becomes necessary, and it is further evidenced by the wasteful spending on security forces.
Posted by: Linda N | May 24, 2010 at 02:18 AM
"In my experience, spray painting and land occupation have been way, way more effective than most other things I've been involved with."
Sorry Matt, I don't accept that opinion and I don't accept your interpretation of the events or the support for these sorts of actions.
The reality of it is that you end up turning the opinions of the people whom you are trying to sway against you, rather than with you.
You may have stopped the HCBP at the time, but you turned the averages Joe's opinion against you - the stop is a short term gain, but the loss of respect is a loss ( for you protesters ) in the long term.
No, I don't think a judge would congratulate you for civil disobedience, that's just doesn't add up. Keep it up and more people will just tune you out. Vandalism, occupation, threats and graffiti are simply unacceptable.
If you want people listen to you, then conduct yourselves in a civil and respectable manner.
I for one want the HCBP to you ahead. I hope the city pursues that plan vigorously.
K
Posted by: KA Morant | May 24, 2010 at 11:06 PM
It would seem rather remarkable for a justice to "congratulate" someone found guilty of committing vandalism.
Posted by: D C | May 25, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Sure, on the surface it might feel like acts of vandalism, occupation, hooliganism, etc. are working, but you are only gaining support from those who already support you. It is self-reinforcement.
The ones you are trying to convince to change and see things your way don't respond to these methods. They just dig in their heels.
Change comes from compromise, from finding common ground, giving and taking. Try it Matt -- you might even like it.
Posted by: Bill D. | May 25, 2010 at 01:23 PM
It is wonderful to see people who believe in democracy and rule of law speaking up. The risk is doing so sometimes gives undo attention to people who think spray paint and intimidation are effective ways of affecting change. Fortunately Canada is not one of the countries for which these tactics are embraced by the general public. Ultimately we rely on our judical system and good government to move us forward. These postings really do show the different approaches to community development. Canada Day is coming up: something to truly celebrate. Congratulations.
Posted by: Lloyd Longfield | May 26, 2010 at 04:59 AM
I can be a bit of a broken record on this, but just contrast the work that Karen Farbridge and her friends did as activists to the Hanlon Creek Business Park mess.
The city Council was interested in building an incinerator to deal with the problems finding a new landfill. The staff couldn't think "outside of the box", so Tom Kleinbeernink did all their work for them building a case for the Wet/Dry facility. He worked so hard at it that I understand that at one point he was literally fainting from exhaustion. When he made his presentation to Council it was so professional that the city adopted it instead of the incinerator.
The city was having a problem with geese along the rivers so various people like Peter Meisenheimer, Mike Pearson, Henry Kock, etc, developed a plan to naturalize the parks along the Speed and Eramosa Rivers. They not only got the Parks staff and Council to support them, they also raised money from service clubs and got volunteers from schools to do the planting. Now we have these amazing naturalized areas alongside the rivers.
Karen and co were volunteers and staff at OPIRG while this happened. Please note: they were involved in POSITIVE ACTION instead of constantly being against stuff. Also note that they WORKED LONG TERM and the DIDN'T NEEDLESSLY ALIENATE PEOPLE.
There is no lack of similar projects that could greatly benefit the city. Matt, why can't you guys just find one of these and make a long term commitment to work at it? Learn to build bridges with people in the community instead of tweaking the nose of authority.
Posted by: Bill Hulet | May 26, 2010 at 09:23 AM
Good post, Bill.
With all due respect to the protesters, camping out in a field for a few days doesn't take a lot of effort or thought. Heck, even my dog can chain himself to a tree.
Sitting down at the table and working towards an understanding that leads to realistic business opportunities for the benefit of the whole city does take some effort.
The protesters made their point out in that field last summer and I applauded that point. But they will lose my support if they go back out there again this summer.
Posted by: D C | May 26, 2010 at 10:35 AM
One thing that seems to be a main premise of the protesters' position is being opposed to using greenspace when there is loads of unused brownspace across the city. This seems a rational position to any reasonable person.
My question is: can't the city use some sort of mechanism (say expropriation/eminent domain even) to develop these spaces?
(god knows we have enough of these spaces - the eyesore by the baseball diamond at gordon/wellington, all the brownspace in the east end, etc etc.)
Posted by: kheimbuch | May 26, 2010 at 01:41 PM
kheimbuch - the land at gordon wellington is contaminated, going back to the days of the former Rockwell foundry that was on site.
Though i'm no politician, when it comes to land development, cities and their potential clients (ie big business) are not looking for small parcels of land that they sandwich themselves into. They seek large plots of serviced land with easy highway access for logistics and cost savings in transportation. Additionally, depending on the industry, they want to know that there is additional development lands available close by. So plots that you speak of (see also IMICO as an example) simply don't fit the needs of commercial industrial growth.
Posted by: T.M. Cochrane | May 26, 2010 at 02:30 PM
sorry for the double post:
Matt & Nancy - i'm with the majority on this one. This is not Vietnam or the hippy 70's (no disrespect meant) Protesting only attracts those who are already like minded in your visions and quest, and grows the barriers between your groups and the true decision makers that you are trying to reach. Business is NOT conducted in vigilante ways. We're dealing with City growth, multi million dollar businesses, workplaces for our children and their children.
While I will always congratulate someone for standing up for what they believe in and for rallying supportive persons around them, I will NEVER be convinced that hooliganism and radicalism can succeed in influencing decision makers, who's job it is to make good decisions and policies for the majority of our citizens.
Unfortunately for you, you're in the minority.
Posted by: T.M. Cochrane | May 26, 2010 at 02:43 PM
Wikipedia: Activism can be described as intentional action to bring about social, political, economic, or environmental change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument.
In my experience, THE single most effective form of activism I have ever engaged in was running for City Council.
A few years ago I began to feel the need to “bring about social, political, economic, or environmental change” in my city.
This was radical action for me. There were two things that worried me; the common perception that all politicians are dishonest, self serving, liars and cheats (I don’t know anybody who would want to be associated with THAT crowd) and, the fact that I have spent most of my life rebelling AGAINST authority, not “selling out” to it.
However, if you REALLY want to make change, if your motivation is tied to worthwhile ideals and not personal ego, if you are willing to actually get off your ass, make a stand and put your time, effort and reputation on the line for what you believe in, if you are willing to test everything in the cruel court of public opinion…then get off the sidelines and make a stand where it REALLY counts – Run for Office!
It is easy to complain and do nothing. It is infinitely harder and far more effective to get involved. The most effective way to get involved is to become part of the process, part of the solution.
Beware! The solution (democracy) involves, accountability, responsibility, and service.
It’s an election year – want to make a change?
Posted by: Mike Salisbury | May 27, 2010 at 10:47 AM
Thanks for posting, Mike. It takes a lot for a City Councilor to come in here and post something and I hope people recognize that.
You raise a very valid point about becoming involved in the process. You chose to do that as a councilor.
There are of course many other very productive ways to affect policy, like committee work or meetings. I am wondering if any of the protesters from last summer became involved in the process as it continued to unfold into the Fall and over the Winter. Or, do the protesters feel they "won" last summer by postponing the development.
Matt, what exactly did you do over the Winter?
Posted by: D C | May 27, 2010 at 12:42 PM
So why haven't you declared then Mike?
Posted by: Karl | June 01, 2010 at 10:54 PM