Markham
December 16, 2009, 2008 By: Caroline Greich & David Fleischer www.yorkregion.com

Developers dish out campaign cash

Study's author says companies gain too much influence with municipal politicians; others disagree

York Region has long had a reputation for being developer friendly, but a new study shows just how deeply involved the industry is in our political process.
Campaign donations give developers too much influence in the planning of cities and towns, according to Funding City Politics, a study released last week by York University professor Robert MacDermid.

"The development industry is by far the most important financier of the majority of winning candidates' campaigns," his report states.

The pattern is not seen in the same proportions at the provincial and federal levels - where party politics dominate - raising questions about how influential developers are when planning decisions are made and how urban sprawl is perpetuated by the election process.

"This is an old problem. Should citizens worry? Yes, because if you think campaign financing reflects who councillors represent then citizens are getting the short end of the stick here. Councillors appear to be representing, if their financing is any guide, developers and not citizens," Mr. MacDermid said in an interview.

There is plenty of evidence to support his report, Mr. MacDermid said.

"Time and time again I came across citizen groups that were in opposition of development plans and time and time again they were ignored," Mr. MacDermid said.

The biggest donors, not just in York Region but across the GTA, are based in Vaughan.

With 66 GTA campaign donations, the biggest donor of all was Greater Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, headed by Dick Coyne, president of Vaughan-based Con-Drain.

The association made campaign contributions to five elected politicians in Vaughan, five in Markham and three in Richmond Hill.

Mr. Coyne said he does not believe their donations make a huge difference but they fill an important function since individual donations are not enough to fund a campaign.

The association represents contractors and is not part of the industry, per se, he said.

They send out questionnaires to candidates to see who supports their values and make donations accordingly, he added.

The public has nothing to fear from their influence since their main issue is to advocate for safe treatment of water, he said.

"We want to see money spent effectively on sewers and watermains," Mr. Coyne said.

While the situation is most pervasive in Vaughan, politicians in Markham and Richmond Hill received the majority of campaign donations from corporations and developers.

In Markham, TACC construction, owned by Silvio DeGasperis, gave to six of 13 winning candidates. Greenpark similarly gave to seven candidates while the owners of the Bloomington Downs Golf Course gave to eight, as did Metrus.

Mr. Degasperis declined to comment for this article and representatives from Smart Centres did not respond to repeated requests before press time.

Metrus officials did not respond to interview requests before press time.

Since the last election, they have become the owner of the 190-acre Dunlap Observatory site. Those fighting to see it kept free of development are concerned they are peddling influence by giving donations to seven of nine council members in Richmond Hill.

"Any rational person should be horrified to think that the fate of their neighbourhood is contingent on whether or not their town council could be compromised by election donations from very powerful developers," DDO Defenders executive member Karen Cilevitz said.

"The Dunlap site is not an isolated incident in the life of Richmond Hill. This is an pervasive, endemic problem."

"I understand how people have that sense," Richmond Hill Mayor Dave Barrow said, noting Metrus owns virtually every piece of developable land in town.

While he acknowledges the important role developer donations played in his own campaign, he said the notion they purchase influence is not as viable as it might have been a few years ago when development started booming in York Region.

"I think it's a dated subject . . .I don't think anybody gains an advantage by funding a campaign," he said.

"Nobody buys me for $750," Mr. Barrow said of the donation limit on corporations.

But the influence isn't in a single donation, Mr. MacDermid said.

"I firmly believe that nobody is bought for $750 and no developer is stupid enough to think they could buy anyone for that price. But the truth is, much more than $750 comes from the development industry," Mr. MacDermid said.

Markham Councillor Valerie Burke was one of the few local candidates who took no money from the development community. She ran a successful campaign, unseating an incumbent councillor.

Taking money from developers can create an impression that politicians are closer to developers than their own communities, she said.

"I think that, certainly in the past, there has been that perception . . . I prefer to be at arm's length, then you're totally a representative for the people," she said.

Mr. MacDermid said while there aren't parties in municipal politics, developers operate much like a political party.

"You could argue there is a party in municipal politics and that's the party of developers. And if you look at how developers scout out candidates, they concentrate their support behind and how they create publicity around the need for development they act in many ways like a party. There's stunning similarities there," Mr. MacDermid said.

Articles