John Sewell copy for February 2006, Post City Magazines.

One had to admire the fanfare. It began with the low, quiet tones of a ministerial voice hinting at change, the n the brass came forward loudly announcing a public consultation to settle the form and scope of the change. Violins and o the r stringed sounds became lush and dominant as the questionnaire was mailed to all and sundry asking for public feedback.

There were trilling sounds, wayward flutes at the edge, as public opinion was tallied, but as time drifted into weeks and months, and more months, the ensemble sagged, some players became somnambulant, some despondent that the great musical work would not find completion.

Yet finally the ministerial maestro has again taken the podium to conduct the last bits of this opus.

And what's that I hear? A squeak? A tiny splinter of sound? Could the re be some mistake? Has the score been lost, or blown away?

There's no mystery of what I'm writing about – it's a great score now being played out, the reform of the Ontario Municipal Board. Because of its penchant for brushing aside the concerns of the community in favour of those of the development industry, the OMB has crescendo-ed into the main concern of neighbourhood activists. They greeted with much enthusiasm the announcement two years ago by the province that the OMB would be changed for the better.

Completed questionnaires and suggestions flowed into the minister's office about how the OMB could be made more responsible and supportive. Then quiet. Finally, after months of silence the government trumpeted its plan in Bill 51, just before year end. Then came the sound of one hand clapping.

The government seems to have decided that the OMB will not be constrained in its ability to decide local planning applications over the head of city council. The government claimed Bill 51 was a grand step forward, but once the fluff of the press releases falls away and the score is seen for what it is, one realizes that the re are only two tiny changes being proposed.

One section of Bill 51 states that from now on the OMB shall “have regard to” the decision of the municipal council. That sounds good, but it does not amount to much. Currently one side or the o the r relies on the decision of city hall, so the OMB is always cognizant of council's decision, even when it comes to a different decision. And the re's irony in the language used. It used to be that the OMB was required to “have regard for” provincial policy statements but those words were considered so weak that two years ago the government changed the se words to read “be consistent with.” Now we're back to weak words to codify something the Board already does. This is a change without substance.

The second change is the requirement that except under limited circumstances, information not provided to council before it makes its decision shall not be presented at the OMB. This will pose no impediment to developers, who swamp council and council staff with consultants' reports in support of the ir demands. Developers rarely present information to the OMB that was not available to council.

But this change will be a big problem for community groups. You might be a member of your local group and familiar with the process: you try your best to convince council, and when you strike out, you the n start raising money to hire a planner to present your arguments – the arguments city council didn't hear - to the Board. This amendment will save you fundraising energy, since it will prevent this kind of evidence being presented. Ei the r you hire the planner to present evidence to city council – something no community group would do because it's hard to raise money before city council makes a decision – or you are out of luck.

Those are the only two changes to the OMB/council relationship that the government is proposing in Bill 51. It's what I mean by a squeak, a splinter of sound. There is no satisfying finale, no heart-thrilling rise of the string section, no role of the drum, no frenzied arm-waving by the maestro. Just the se tiny little sounds that aren't relevant.

Yes, some of us hoped the government would make the OMB a bona fide court of appeal to ensure council decisions conform to policy and that the process is fair. Apparently our hopes were too high. Maybe we're at the wrong performance. It's days like this we should have retreated to the mindless mayhem of rock ‘n roll.

Sure, we can attend the hearing of some legislative committee once the fresh days of spring have arrived, and the re sing out our sad lament. But that's not what we had hoped for.

**

In my January column I argued the re was a federal `tax surplus' from Toronto of $13 billion, and that our federal candidates should ask that some of that tax surplus be returned to Toronto . In mid-January the Toronto Board of Trade made much the same argument, but the ir study (see www.bot.com , click on Media Releases) says the surplus is $6.6 billion or about $6700 per household. I'm not willing to fight over the exact size of the surplus since we're all singing the same song – Toronto needs a healthy chunk of that federal surplus. Ay yes, me and the Board of Trade agreeing once again.

- end -