Two major groups of people will be trying to gaslight you into doing nothing to fight COVID.

OhWellians: there's nothing we can do, give up, we're all going to get it.

AllsWellians: The worst is past us, pandemic is almost over, back to normal.

— T. Ryan Gregory (@TRyanGregory) April 12, 2022

Here we are now on the last day of 2023 and COVID-19 levels have reached another huge “wave” based on wastewater data, nearly the same levels as two years ago when the Delta and the original Omicron variants surged around the world. So many people are reporting being infected for the first time, and sadly our household has fallen into that category this year.

We had our household’s first case back in late November. Our youngest attends a home daycare, where one of the other children’s parent had contracted COVID-19 from their teaching job at a public school. While the other child tested negative and was allowed to return, the daycare provider still caught it from the other child and unknowingly passed it on to our child. We tested our child for three days until a positive test appeared, but thankfully there were no symptoms. It lasted 11 days! No symptoms and testing positive. We were lucky to have had the advanced knowledge of a possible infection and the ability to test daily. Nobody else caught it: we had stopped the spread.

Our household’s second case came five days later when our eldest complained of symptoms – nausea and headache – in the middle of the school day and had to come home. Then the fever came and fatigue hit, which thankfully only lasted the weekend. This infection most certainly came from school, despite our child diligently wearing a mask indoors (one of only a handful): except at eating time, where it’s a free-for-all for infectious disease to spread through the classroom. Tests returned positive for eight days and a week of school was missed, plus two family gatherings. We were lucky again to have caught it before infection spread at home. For a second time, nobody else caught it: we had stopped the spread again!

Third time was the charm for COVID-19. We all tested before a Christmas Eve dinner with extended family, all negative. Christmas Day was spend at home. On Boxing Day, we went to see the same family for brunch and gifts, and figured since we had just tested on the afternoon of the 24th, there was no need to test again. When we got home on the afternoon of the 26th, our other school-age child (who also diligently masks indoors) started to have a sniffly nose, and a couple hours later a sore throat: bingo, another postive test result. This case was asymptomatic until it was too late, as both us parents caught it and are now suffering the effects of COVID-19. Thankfully, we did not spread it to any of the extended family!

We just hope and pray that there are no long-term effects for any of our family: thankfully we all had the XBB vaccination in October and this has likely lessened the severity of our infections. We are now missing out on more visits with family and friends, at a time of year when it is usually our only chance to see certain people. COVID-19 has virtually cancelled Christmas for us this year.

The key takeaway here is that schools are the primary source of infection, and yet nobody with any responsibility wants to do anything about it. The simple act of requiring masks in schools would go a long way toward preventing the spread of COVID-19, influenza, and other cold viruses. Thankfully, classrooms have been (or at least are supposed to be) running HEPA filters, which may be why we made it so far into the year without an infection. Schools also need to start tracking absences due to testing positive for COVID-19 and reporting on an aggregate basis: this would give parents the knowledge to take proper precautions to prevent the spread of disease.

In 2024, let’s find our sense of community and caring for one another once again. Wear a mask whenever you are in a public space, whether you feel sick or not. I can tell you from personal experience that the SARS-CoV-2 virus can be isolated with simple solutions such as testing, proper ventilation, cleaning the air, and wearing masks. We have the tools and the knowledge: let’s use them!

1. Produce suggestions about policy changes and introduce new ideas;
2. Receive items from city council for review and input; and
3. Act as a contact point for the public to bring forward their ideas and concerns.

The first role has been in full force during my experience. Committee members work with city staff to produce reports that reflect the desired outcome of the concept along with any restrictions of existing legislation at all levels of government. Much of our collaboration with staff have resulted in stronger ideas being put forward, and even strengthening existing programs that were in need of review.

The third role has been used effectively to introduce ideas such as joining the Compact of Mayors and establishing London as a Blue Community, which have been accepted by city council to varying degrees.

Unfortunately, in the over eight years that I’ve been serving on advisory committees, never has the second role taken place. City councillors can’t possibly have both breadth and depth of knowledge to address all of the issues faced by modern society. Having advisory committees act as a resource for knowledge about a diversity of topics is a boon to how a city acts and operates. Council needs to make better use of advisory committees as such. These committees are not deterrents to how decisions get made: in my experience, ideas put forward by advisory committees are taken seriously and considered by councillors. While not every concept gets accepted in the end, the fact that citizen advisors are able to have input into the direction of city policy means we have a strong democracy.

A very recent example of advisory committees going underutilized was at Tuesday’s council meeting. The recommendation was put forward (and ultimately failed) to change the tree preservation bylaw, in an effort to increase conservation of our urban forest by requiring a permit for cutting down trees of diameter 40 cm or larger instead of the current 50 cm minimum. The Trees & Forests Advisory Committee was not even consulted on this. Had they been, perhaps the experts on that committee would have given their insight and aided staff in producing a business case for the change.

There are many problems with the proposed new framework for advisory committees. While I could comment on all of them, I will instead focus on the two committees that I work on: Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) and London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH).

ACE

The proposal is to combine the current ACE with the Trees & Forest Advisory Committee (TFAC), and rename it to deal with “climate change” shows how those involved in this reformation process do not understand what these committees do. We are (supposedly) “The Forest City” – wouldn’t we want to ensure our city can proudly live up to that moniker? London is sadly underforested and would benefit from TFAC continuing as its own entity.

Adding trees to the ACE mandate would make the committee quite unwieldy: ACE already deals with how to protect the natural environment (pollution of the water, air, & ground; species at risk; impacts on nature and human health) and the built environment (sustainable development; renewable energy; impacts of active transportation and transit), on top of the climate emergency. As it is, ACE should perhaps be split into two separate committees!

Combining these two committees would be like combining the Ministry of the Environment with the Ministry of Natural Resources. It sounds like they deal with the same thing on the surface, where the mandates and city departments connected are a lot more diverse.

LACH

We have a similar nonsensical combination with LACH and the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC), and turning it into a planning advisory committee. LACH already has agendas that can reach upwards of 700 pages, and is required by provincial law to provide advice on heritage issues. It also has a massive mandate and doesn’t need anything further to dilute the focus of the committee.

If there is a feeling that AAC isn’t being effective, it may find a better home with another committee that deals with planning issues, or needs a broader mandate.

A dry spell

All of this is also occurring during a global pandemic, which has prevented the majority of the committees from meeting starting mid-March. It wasn’t until August when LACH started meeting again, and that was only because there were legislative items that required addressing. Why weren’t all of the other committees asked to start meeting again in September? October? Now that we know how to run digital meetings, it should be easy enough to allow anybody to join the committee meetings.

Having digital capacity should also allow for more participation across our community. It removes the undue burden of requiring physical attendance, which presents a problem for many with mobility issues, lack of transportation options, or caregiver responsibilities.

While a review is welcome and needed on occasion, it has to be done with thoughtfulness toward consideration for how to best engage citizens and produce appropriate policy for our city. Let’s make sure we don’t end up losing out in a blind attempt to save a few pennies.

—
This article is also featured as part of the Urban League of London’s series on reforms to London’s advisory committees.

https://www.urbanleague.ca/new-blog/2020/11/29/importance-of-advisory-committees-in-local-decision-making

Aside from firsthand experience with how thing get done at City Hall, working with fellow citizens on ACE has given me the opportunity to put forward ideas for improving our city’s environmental performance with my committee colleagues. One of these proposals that we have been working on has much promise and deserves implementation: a Property Assessment for Clean Energy (PACE) program.

Here’s how it works: property owners make energy improvements to their homes or buildings. This may include installing high-efficiency furnaces and water heaters, replacement (for vinyl) and repairs (for wooden)  to windows and doors, renewable heating such as solar thermal and geothermal, solar electricity, grey-water recovery systems, and other energy- or water-saving technologies. Rather than paying the cost of these improvements up front, property owners would pay for them over several years in installments added to their property tax assessment, using the Local Improvement Charge (LIC) provisions.

There are several benefits. By making our houses more energy efficient, we reduce carbon emissions that are contributing to climate change. Property owners who participate save money on utility bills, since they are using less energy. The money they save goes toward paying the loan back, and what remains left over can be spent in the local economy.

Energy improvements are beneficial, and they can have high upfront costs. A PACE program will put these kinds of improvements within reach for families with a wider range of incomes, allowing them to save money and lower their carbon footprint as well.

Another upside to PACE is that even if a family plans to sell their home within a few years, energy improvements still make sense. The new furnace, windows, insulation, or other improvements stay with the home and continue generating savings for the new owner. The cost also stays with the property, and the new owners who are seeing the benefits of a more energy-efficient home continue to pay for the improvements on their property tax assessment until they are paid for.

The other part of this win-win-win situation is economic stimulus.  There will be many local jobs created for the vendors and installers of qualifying equipment, which means the money being spent by property owners will go to companies in London to employ workers living in the city. It would also be revenue neutral for the City of London, and could be done in conjunction with some of London Hydro’s existing promotions.

The City of London has been working with a number of other Ontario municipalities to make a framework for cities to follow. Toronto has a successful program called Home Energy Loan Program, or HELP, that could be easily adapted across the province – including here in London.

I have championed a PACE program at the Advisory Committee on the Environment and will continue to do so on City Council. It makes sense to provide Londoners with easier ways to improve energy efficiency at their homes and businesses, and to create a stable environment for employment in this sector. We can help people save money, create jobs, and make London an environmental leader at all at the same time.

Such a loss of life – and of quality of life for many others – would be unacceptable at any time. Coming just after Thanksgiving, when many Canadians have celebrated an abundant harvest by preparing large meals and bringing large groups of family and friends under one roof, it stands out even more. Addressing poverty and homelessness must be a priority for London’s next City Council.

At the municipal level, we can ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing. One of the tools to do that is inclusionary zoning, which would require a certain percentage of units in any new development to be affordable to people with low and moderate incomes. (Generally, housing is considered “affordable” when households do not pay more than 30% of gross income on annual accommodation costs.) This also means affordable housing units will blend in with the rest of the development, which creates a healthy, mixed community rather than isolating those with lower incomes.  These units must be done across the board, from highrises to subdivisions, in order to be truly effective.

London can also expand our Housing First program, which provides immediate access to permanent housing and support services for people experiencing homelessness. This approach treats people with dignity, and doesn’t require them to clear other hurdles, such as a period of sobriety, before being sheltered. In many cases it has permanently improved people’s living conditions. It is also cost effective. People without homes require a huge amount of resources from law enforcement and healthcare. Providing people with a stable place to live reduces these pressures on other parts of the system – the number of ambulance calls, for example.  Expanding this program can be done immediately, by hiring more workers and increasing the rent subsidy.

Of course, not everything that needs to be done to tackle poverty is within the city’s control. Right now the monthly housing allowance portion of Ontario Works is $237 below the market rent for London. The next council must lobby the Ontario government to increase social assistance rates. So far, it is going in the opposite direction. The new provincial government rolled back a planned 3% increase in July to 1.5%, or just $11 per month.  The basic income pilot was also cancelled instead of being seen to completion, so that we can understand the benefits and drawbacks of a province-wide program.  London council needs to open dialogue with the provincial government to reverse this decision.

London Middlesex Housing Corporation is also mired in repair backlogs because the funding simply isn’t there to keep up.  Dwelling units can take months to get simple repairs completed and in the meantime are not suitable for living.  There is also a need for support workers to help many living in these subsidized units that simply is not present.

Another piece of the puzzle is the lack of community support for addictions.  The temporary overdose prevention site has been funded on eleventh-hour decisions and we must work to find an appropriate location for a permanent site.  People who are suffering from addictions need to have a reliable location to go to get help from professionals who can lead them down a path to freedom from the strangling grip of drugs.

We need to do better for low-income and precariously housed Londoners.  I will work with council colleagues to expand Housing First and implement inclusionary zoning in London. I will also raise the issue of Ontario Works and ODSP rates loudly and often with provincial representatives. Let’s work together to eliminate homelessness in London.

On Tuesday, the Civic Works Committee voted to move ahead with an environmental action plan that includes curbside organic waste pickup – essentially, paving the way for green bins. It’s wonderful to see the city finally move forward on organic waste diversion after more than a decade of stalling and even moving backwards on the issue.

London is the only major city in Ontario without a green bin program, and as a result we are still mired in the mid-40s for percentage of waste diverted from the garbage dump. We can’t meet the provincial target of 60% waste diversion from landfills without addressing organic trash. There is another reason for urgency.  London’s landfill site, W12A, is only expected to meet the city’s needs for a little more than 10 years. It’s already the size of 190 football fields. Improving waste diversion will help that space last longer and reduce (or potentially avoid) the cost of land expansion.

It’s difficult to understand the delay. The City began requiring big festivals in Victoria Park (such as SunFest and Rib Fest) to also separate organic waste at EcoStations in 2007. It was a great way to make our festivals greener while getting Londoners ready to sort food waste at home. Unfortunately, the City stopped that requirement in 2014 and Home County was the only festival to continue with EcoStations that year. A Green Bin pilot project was also completed in 2012, but hasn’t progressed to citywide policy until now.

I am glad to see the current council moving forward with green bins and I looking forward to supporting them when the next stage of this implementation plan comes before the next council; however, we need to make sure we aren’t continuing to miss opportunities for effectively dealing with waste in London.

So far, the 60% Residential Waste Diversion plan only includes a firm commitment for what it calls a “Curbside Green Bin Program”. For the most part, that means single-family dwellings only. While the plan does call for a pilot for multi-residential homes (mainly apartment buildings), we’ve seen how long it can take for waste diversion pilots in London to result in real action after wallowing in the “pilot” phase.

Pick-up from apartments should be built into the plan from the beginning. It’s simpler that many might think. While many buildings, especially older ones, only have a single-stream garbage chute, residents have adapted to carrying recyclables down to a central location for sorting and pickup. Chutes could be easily converted to organic waste only. If all of the messy, smelly garbage is going in the green bins (including food waste, pet waste, diapers), what’s left is dry, non-messy garbage that could be carried out like the recycling with very little additional effort. Once we have collection of residential organic waste set up, then the city needs to expand the program to cover commercial and institutional disposal.  Our long-term vision as a city must be set to zero waste, with a stated goal: 2050 is certainly achievable in my estimation.

Another necessary part of making organic pickup work is enforcing the required sorting. London must make clear garbage bags mandatory for the remaining dry garbage, so any organic material that doesn’t belong can easily be seen. Cities like Markham and Guelph have had success with this strategy, that makes it clear to residents sorting is not optional. It also lets collectors spot refuse such as hazardous household waste, construction waste, and electronic waste that need to be taking to proper disposal facilities and not disposed of for curbside collection.

Finally, we need a definitive plan for where London’s organic waste will be sorted. Those who live near the private processing facilities in the region have reasonably expressed concerns about odour pollution. We either need a commitment from one of these facilities to make upgrades that reduce contamination and escaping odours before being awarded a contract for London’s organic waste, or we need a plan to build a top-grade municipally owned facility that could also take in waste from other municipalities.

The actions in the 60% Residential Waste Diversion plan are to be phased in between 2019 and 2022. Let’s begin working on these implementation issues now, and ensure that this program can hit the ground running. On council, I assure you I will be taking action that leads the City toward a robust and successful waste plan.