MISSISSAUGA (August, 1989) - When last we reported on the situation in this city's business community of Clarkson, a raging debate over its Business Improvement Area (BIA) (involving BIA members, executive, Mississauga's municipal council, and Freedom Party) had reached the boiling point (see Freedom Flyer #13).

After having dumped the issue in the lap of Mississauga's mayor Hazel McCallion, BIA executive members Pat Pleich and Robin Raimondo took a drastic step in their effort to rid their business community of the BIA by filing a complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada over the actions of the city solicitor Bruce Thom at a BIA meeting held on May 15, 1989. Charging that Thom was "threatening" them and behaving unprofessionally with regard to his advisements on the Clarkson BIA, Pleich and Raimondo argued that he had no right to attend BIA meetings since he was not a member and that his presence was destructive to the "democratic" nature of the group.

In his response to their charges, Thom was forced to explain the nature of BIAs to the Law Society of Upper Canada. His description in every way confirmed what Freedom Party has been saying about BIAs all along; that they are not democratic organizations and that they represent another level of business tax.

As Mississauga City Solicitor Bruce Thom explained: "The Clarkson Business Improvement Area (BIA) is a creature of statute; specifically, Section 217 of the Municipal Act. ...Although the BIA is not a democratic process (whereby every assessed owner gets a vote) the Clarkson group have proceeded to some extent as if that was the case. ...In fact, the Board of Management is the BIA and the general group simply forms the tax base. ...In late 1988, the general group in Clarkson tried to put a 'Constitution' in place. Even though it has no legal effect, since it deals with a group that does not exist in the legislation, it was an attempt to bring order to the chaotic general meetings. ... At the meeting, I simply advised the group of the provisions of the legislation, told them that the legislation take precedence over any Constitution and that if any members of the Board did not want to carry out their statutory duty to prepare a budget and administer it, they should get off the Board or Council may be forced to remove them by law."

It is understandable why Thom appeared unable to comprehend the nature of the BIA opponents' charges: "I am supposedly 'helping some dishonest politicians to break the law' but neither the politicians nor the offence are cited." Similarly, it is understandable why BIA members felt threatened and offended by Thom's recital of the law. "This is not democracy, but pure coercion," remarked (then) executive member Raimondo. But it was not Thom who "threatened" members of the Clarkson BIA; it was the law itself.

The whole confusion initially arises over how BlAs are "sold" to their "members", or rather, as Thom has explained, to their "tax base". It is quite possible that Thom is unaware of how misleadingly BIAs are politically promoted to business communities. Business people are not being told that they are merely a tax base; they are outrightly being told that BIAs are democratic, which accounts for why "the Clarkson group have proceeded to some extent as if that was the case."

Regrettably, it appears that the Clarkson BIA may have to continue in existence for quite some time. With a six figure sum outstanding as a loan from the city, the chances of dissolving the BIA before its debt is repaid is remote. This very circumstance was warned against in Freedom Party's BIA Warning brochure. And after all her work, BIA opponent Pat Pleich has been forced to face dismissal from the executive to which she was elected.

Though the Clarkson saga is not yet a closed case, it should serve as fair warning to potential BIA conscripts around the province everywhere. Warning: BIAs may be hazardous to your economic health and survival.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002