Wrote this back in April. Let me know your thoughts

https://preview.redd.it/0vg83ocix4kh1.png?width=744&format=png&auto=webp&s=cd84984923783507046d24c7af9455c02581405a

https://www.rowrowforcouncil.com/post/e-scooters-bikes-a-framework-for-a-registry

Can anyone provide me the empirical evidence that supports a moratorium or delay in data center investment? I propose that I can directly refute all major concerns of the anti-AI lobby with verified mathematical proof. Let's go.

Our movement is larger than ever. Our committee has grown to include legal professionals, long time advocates for children's rights, previous employees of CAS, and countless victims of their incompetence.

As most of you already know I have been advocating for a formal inquiry into the horrible murder of a young boy. In addition he and his brother also suffered prolonged torture while under the care and supervision of Ottawa and Halton CAS.

I won't go into details but you can find them here:

https://www.rowrowforcouncil.com/group/justice-for-l-l-and-j-l/discussion/ad793523-ca9e-4b3a-aac7-fded581ccb7f

Along with a list of questions the community has for them:

https://www.rowrowforcouncil.com/group/justice-for-l-l-and-j-l/discussion/662a52b2-e8ea-44ef-815e-17161dd29dc7

Now we need your support. We have a goal of a 5000 signature petition. The request is simple.

1. Investigate how this horrible incident was allowed to happen by Ottawa and Halton CAS
2. Make all findings public, and available to any resident in Ontario.

Petition Title Page :

https://www.rowrowforcouncil.com/group/justice-for-l-l-and-j-l/discussion/245a2e4f-a030-409a-80c1-e99a167e68d2

Petition Regular Page:

https://www.rowrowforcouncil.com/group/justice-for-l-l-and-j-l/discussion/6c2a0a61-c392-46a3-924f-95a688dcde7b

It is very important to note that digital signatures are not recognized in the Ontario Legislature. To that end this petition must be printed and have original signatures on it. I will need volunteers to print the petition and 3 pieces of information. Full Name. Signature, and Address. Without those 3 things any signature is invalid. At the end of August, I will collect all signatures from anyone who volunteers.

If anyone wants to volunteer but needs more of a coordinated environment, I will be taking a car ride of people out to canvas every Saturday and Sunday in August to get signatures here in Burlington.

If you're interested in coordinating the effort in your part of the city I can provide you with some materials such as a large binder and copies of the petition, and some fliers etc... Just reach out to me:

rowen@rowrowforcouncil.com

Yesterday council voted to oppose a one year moratorium on AI data centers in Burlington. Instead they will be looking at a much more reasonable timeframe of 8 - 9 weeks for coming up with criteria.

An AI Gigafactory has been proposed right here in Halton Region. This would be one of the largest AI centers in Canada. This project has a much higher potential for negative local impact than the one proposed on South Service Rd. here in Burlington. I would encourage those of you who are worried to keep an eye on this one. No permits have been applied for yet, and no approvals granted.

Here is what is currently known about the proposed hyperscale AI data center near Ninth Line and Dundas in North Oakville:

1. Project Overview & Scope

• Developer: BUZZ High Performance Computing (BUZZ HPC), a subsidiary of Canadian-headquartered HIVE Digital Technologies.
• Scale & Power Capacity: The proposal envisions a 320 megawatt (MW) industrial-scale AI facility (often referred to as an "AI Gigafactory").
• Investment: Estimated at $3.5 billion CAD.
• Hardware & Purpose: Designed to host over 100,000 GPUs at full build-out to support AI supercomputing, cloud workloads, and high-performance computing along the Toronto–Waterloo tech corridor.
• Location: A 25-acre vacant parcel at 3480 Ninth Line in Ward 6 (North Oakville), near William Halton Parkway/Dundas Street West along the Mississauga–Oakville border.

2. Current Status & Timeline

• Target Online Date: BUZZ HPC stated a goal of bringing the facility online in the second half of 2027, though it would likely scale up in phases rather than opening at full 320 MW capacity.
• Town Approval: As of mid-2026, the Town of Oakville has not received a formal development application from the proponent. The Town noted that if an application is submitted, it must go through standard technical reviews and statutory public planning meetings before Council considers approval.
• Site Activity: High-voltage utility infrastructure work for a dedicated substation in the immediate area has been underway along Ninth Line.

3. Community Reaction & Key Considerations

Because a 320 MW facility would be one of the largest data centers in Canada, the proposal has drawn significant discussion from nearby Oakville and Mississauga residents:

• Economic Arguments: Proponents highlight the influx of high-tech infrastructure, hundreds of construction jobs, and ongoing municipal tax revenues.
• Resident Concerns: Nearby residents have raised questions regarding massive electrical grid draw, potential noise impacts from mechanical cooling systems/backup generators, and proximity to developing residential neighborhoods.
• Cooling & Resources: While older data centers used evaporative water cooling, modern high-density AI clusters increasingly rely on closed-loop liquid cooling systems to minimize water waste.

Hello everyone. I will be delegating to council on Tuesday July 21st regarding the practices we use to evaluate data centers. My approach will be one of caution. We MUST not fight these proposals tooth and nail through the traditionally litigious practices normally engaged in by city hall. We must create a framework for regulation that allows us as residents to decide which facilities are appropriate. I cannot say if I am pro or con for this particular data center, but it is important to approach this project with an open mind. Presently there is not enough data available regarding the cost/benefits of this facility.

To that end I would love to hear from all of you, and if there are any particular technical concerns that any of you have, I would love to air them in front of council on your behalf. I'm undertaking this action because I have detailed knowledge and resources in the technical sector. I want to make sure that if we do allow similar projects in the future we have the ability, just like residential developments, to voice our concerns and be heard.

We must be careful about what projects we fight, and how hard we resist. Right now, this data center is within current legal frameworks to move ahead without council approval. If we interfere too heavily, we risk bringing provincial or federal intervention down upon us. If this happens there is a possibility it will set a precedent that we will have a harder time fighting when another facility is proposed. A second facility may even have worse characteristics than in this current scenario.

My point is that if we fight to hard we may lose our ability to negotiate for a better project. If we don't fight hard enough, then we risk losing the ability to provide input. In both of those scenarios resident outcome suffers. At the end of the day we should be focusing on this issue through a lens of resident outcome. I personally will not stand for any projects that sacrifice resident well-being. If I believe that harm will come to residents as the result of a project I will speak out and organize to prevent it.

I spoke yesterday with Powell Planning & Associates. This is the company that is responsible for getting all the necessary permits for the new data center here in Burlington. They have put me in touch with the lead architect for the whole project. I will speak to them either today or most likely tomorrow. After that I will have a full video update for all of you on what to expect from this datacenter.

City Hall is trying to change election rules illegally. Here is the full story:

A short time ago, all candidates and I have received this communication from the city from Mike de Rond

Good afternoon candidates,

I am reaching out today to provide clarification on candidate conduct at third-party (not run by the City) events taking place on City property. Our previous interpretation of the Use of Corporate Resources During an Election Period Policy was that it was up to event organizers running events on city property to limit campaigning as they see fit. However, in the last 24 hours, my team and I have heard that many third-party event organizers assumed that the City rules for no campaigning at events on City property applied to their own events as well, and that these organizers were concerned about being put in a position in which they could have to refuse or permit campaign activity or be seen as to be tacitly supporting any candidate for which campaigning/displaying campaign materials was occurring. Ultimately, these event organizers want the focus to be on the events themselves.

For that reason and to create consistency across all events on City property, campaigning at all events on City property will not be permitted in accordance with section 1 of the policy. This includes wearing and distributing campaign apparel/materials. Per section 1 of the policy, campaigning on City property will only be permitted if it is rented for those purposes.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I have sent this email in reply:

This change is not listed anywhere in the current policy, and I do believe Mr. De Rond does not have sufficient authority to authorize these changes unilaterally. Furthermore, I find it very insulting that when I replied to his email less than five minutes after receiving it, I received notice that he would be unavailable to discuss anything until Monday. If we are to believe what he has written, he made this decision yesterday. I was not aware that this change was even proposed, and it flies in the face of the written rules outlined in Use of Corporate Resources During an Election Period Policy, where there is no mention of this new rule.

Here is the reply I received 5 minutes after receiving the "official" notice.

Hello,

I am away from the office unti Monday, July 13 and will respond when I return. If your message is urgent, please contact clerks@burlington.ca

Best,

Mike

Under Section 88.18 of Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (MEA), municipalities and local boards are legally required to establish rules and procedures regarding the use of municipal resources during an election campaign before May 1 of an election year.

Because this deadline is encoded in provincial legislation, the rules governing corporate resources are locked in before nominations even open.

The Use of Corporate Resources During an Election Policy is a formal corporate policy. In Burlington, updates to this policy must be formally reviewed by Legislative Services staff and approved by a vote of City Council (as was done most recently in March 2026 via report LLS-12-26).

While the Clerk cannot alter the policy itself mid-election, they do possess broad powers under Section 12 of the MEA to provide interpretations, operational clarifications, or administrative directives if an unforeseen scenario arises. However, these directives must strictly align with the existing text of the policy approved before May 1

This current amendment does not align with existing text of the policy as it changes key parameters around the use of public property for private functions. It also removes discretion from the event hosts.

I'm calling on all candidates in this upcoming election to push back against this last-minute change, which seeks to limit campaign exposure for candidates with existing events planned on public property before this new rule was dropped on us mid election cycle. This is an unprofessional and frankly shortsighted approach to redesigning corporate policy, and it occurred without a vote from our elected officials. Setting the precedent that city employees can change rules this significant mid-election with no notice to any candidates who might have already planned such events would be a mistake.

Thank you all for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to reach out to me if you want to discuss anything.

City Hall is trying to change election rules illegally. Here is the full story:

A short time ago, all candidates and I have received this communication from the city from Mike de Rond

Good afternoon candidates,

I am reaching out today to provide clarification on candidate conduct at third-party (not run by the City) events taking place on City property. Our previous interpretation of the Use of Corporate Resources During an Election Period Policy was that it was up to event organizers running events on city property to limit campaigning as they see fit. However, in the last 24 hours, my team and I have heard that many third-party event organizers assumed that the City rules for no campaigning at events on City property applied to their own events as well, and that these organizers were concerned about being put in a position in which they could have to refuse or permit campaign activity or be seen as to be tacitly supporting any candidate for which campaigning/displaying campaign materials was occurring. Ultimately, these event organizers want the focus to be on the events themselves.

For that reason and to create consistency across all events on City property, campaigning at all events on City property will not be permitted in accordance with section 1 of the policy. This includes wearing and distributing campaign apparel/materials. Per section 1 of the policy, campaigning on City property will only be permitted if it is rented for those purposes.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I have sent this email in reply:

This change is not listed anywhere in the current policy, and I do believe Mr. De Rond does not have sufficient authority to authorize these changes unilaterally. Furthermore, I find it very insulting that when I replied to his email less than five minutes after receiving it, I received notice that he would be unavailable to discuss anything until Monday. If we are to believe what he has written, he made this decision yesterday. I was not aware that this change was even proposed, and it flies in the face of the written rules outlined in Use of Corporate Resources During an Election Period Policy, where there is no mention of this new rule.

Here is the reply I received 5 minutes after receiving the "official" notice.

Hello,

I am away from the office unti Monday, July 13 and will respond when I return. If your message is urgent, please contact clerks@burlington.ca

Best,

Mike

Under Section 88.18 of Ontario’s Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (MEA), municipalities and local boards are legally required to establish rules and procedures regarding the use of municipal resources during an election campaign before May 1 of an election year.

Because this deadline is encoded in provincial legislation, the rules governing corporate resources are locked in before nominations even open.

The Use of Corporate Resources During an Election Policy is a formal corporate policy. In Burlington, updates to this policy must be formally reviewed by Legislative Services staff and approved by a vote of City Council (as was done most recently in March 2026 via report LLS-12-26).

While the Clerk cannot alter the policy itself mid-election, they do possess broad powers under Section 12 of the MEA to provide interpretations, operational clarifications, or administrative directives if an unforeseen scenario arises. However, these directives must strictly align with the existing text of the policy approved before May 1

This current amendment does not align with existing text of the policy as it changes key parameters around the use of public property for private functions. It also removes discretion from the event hosts.

I'm calling on all candidates in this upcoming election to push back against this last-minute change, which seeks to limit campaign exposure for candidates with existing events planned on public property before this new rule was dropped on us mid election cycle. This is an unprofessional and frankly shortsighted approach to redesigning corporate policy, and it occurred without a vote from our elected officials. Setting the precedent that city employees can change rules this significant mid-election with no notice to any candidates who might have already planned such events would be a mistake.

Thank you all for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to reach out to me if you want to discuss anything.

Life in prison. No parole eligibility for 25 years. Hamber and Cooney showed no remorse for their actions. Hamber was so bold as to read a poem that she wrote from the perspective of the child she murdered. Jail is too good for this subhuman trash. There was a town in the US called Salem that had a punishment I think would befit them.

Hello everyone,

Tomorrow is July 3rd. The sentencing for Becky Hamber and Brandy Cooney will be occurring at the Milton court house. I will be in virtual attendance for the entirety of the sentencing. I thought I would provide some important background about the formation of CAS and the insulation from scrutiny they are privileged with. Join me tonight in praying that these two monsters get the maximum allowable penalty for the first degree murder of L.L. And the confinement and torture of his younger brother J.L. This year I chose to sacrifice my Holiday for Canada day to dedicate to putting together this information, and helping advocates ensure that we continue to push for transparency and accountability for those that allowed this to occur under their watch.

https://www.rowrowforcouncil.com/post/the-bureaucracy-of-broken-children-how-cas-escapes-accountability-while-kids-die-in-the-dark

A lot of people have been reaching out to let me know their concerns and ideas for Burlington Transit.

I know that ARGO transit has a pilot coming to Burlington in the near future that will focus on on-demand mini buses that will serve as feeder routes to the traditional transit lines to solve the first mile/last mile problem with transit adoption. When I talked to their founder and CEO they both told me that they had seen a lot of success in their pilots in Both Brampton and Bradford. It is interesting to note that adding this service fit in to the existing budgets of both organizations and resulted in over 100,000 additional rides in Bradford alone.

Other critics have mentioned the issues some routes have with schedule adherence. It would be interesting to hear some thoughts on how we could overcome those issues.

Finally route design is at the core of a lot of debates surrounding the agency. Are there any routes you think need more service? Any routes we are wasting money servicing that could be moved to ARGO's on demand model?

Anything else transit related that crosses your mind feel free to put it here.

There is something really important I feel I have to say. I owe this subreddit and the entire city an apology. See there are some really nasty people out there that refuse to leave me alone. I am trying to reach out to talk to you about local issues but the reddit is hijacked to talk about two-decade old issues that are politically irrelevant. I'm sorry for my part in perpetuating the abuse these trolls are inflicting on our community. I am a fighter. I want to fight for Burlington. I want to provide better representation for the people here in my ward. It can be very hard to engage the community when people like this are around. Know that I will fight as hard for you as I fight these pathetic reddit trolls. Cue the Hitler reference in the comments in 3...2...1...

In all seriousness, this is a time for you all to reach out and tell me what you would like to see happen in municipal government for the next 4 years. If you cannot keep your criticism constructive, please keep it to yourself.

The Pipeline to Permit Committee is not a housing strategy. Instead it represents the consolidation of power into the incompetent grasp of Mayor Marianne Meed Ward. In a single, unanimous vote, the Mayor managed to convince City Council to sign on to this foolish fancy in exchange for a front facing seat to a far fetched failure. It is a case study in executive manipulation, demonstrating how easily a focused leader can consolidate control over a municipal chamber filled with a council who are either entirely unsuspecting, or entirely checked out.

The creation of this committee was a calculated political maneuver. The Mayor successfully framed the initiative as an urgent, innovative solution to intense provincial housing pressures. The council failed to see the structural trap, or failed to care. The motion glided through the chamber without any rigorous debate or meaningful push back. While veteran members of council remained fundamentally checked out, the Mayor quietly centralized her influence over the city's multi-billion-dollar development agenda. By voting unanimously in favor of this committee, council members effectively voted themselves into an endless loop of failures.

The baffling part for me is the sheer lunacy of the concept. Not one person heard the pitch for this monstrosity and did any critical thinking? There is a simple concept expressed as a well known colloquialism: Too many cooks in the kitchen. When you make advisory committees from with too many sources of influence you create a political quagmire where projects go to die. Bottle necking a city's ability to approve projects leads to a drop in proposals. This leads to panic about not hitting housing goals. Projects are rushed through with no consultation to appease built up demand. Rinse, repeat. You now have a doom loop. The current administration is a reactive mess that cannot stabilize no matter what ridiculous things they try.

The profound irony of this entire apparatus is that it is structurally useless. The Pipeline to Permit Committee is a purely an advisory body. It possesses zero legal authority to bypass regular planning channels, override zoning bylaws, or fast-track a single building permit. Instead of cutting through red tape, it adds an entirely new, redundant layer of committee bureaucracy over existing municipal departments. It brings together multiple distinct entities, each plagued by its own internal administrative inertia, and expects them to work faster. It is impossible to conquer municipal gridlock by multiplying committees. It is an expensive, time-consuming loop that achieves nothing but the illusion of progress. Luckily the illusion of progress is Meed Ward's favorite thing. The purpose of this committee is to dilute responsibility for continued failures to meet the housing goals set out by the province. A task, I might add, that has not been a problem in any other Halton community.

The hard metrics prove that this strategy is a total failure. The committee was explicitly formed to rescue Burlington from missing its provincial housing targets. Housing starts across the city have plummeted, proving that high-level round tables and digital dashboards do not lay bricks or pour concrete. Provincial tracking has repeatedly placed Burlington at or near the very bottom of Ontario municipalities regarding progress toward mandated provincial housing targets. The target of enabling 29,000 homes by 2031 is ambitious to say the least. Market data from early 2026 indicates the situation has worsened. For the first quarter of 2026, Burlington recorded only 22 housing starts, sitting drastically below its historical ten-year average for that period.

This drop is so severe that the City of Burlington moved forward with an emergency proposal to temporarily eliminate 100% of municipal residential development charges for a two-year window in an aggressive effort to entice developers to start pouring concrete again on stalled projects. Luckily, at least that idiocy was prevented by the council. Barely.

Burlington does not need more centralized forums for high-level political gamesmanship, and it certainly does not need more administrative layers wrapped in the guise of efficiency. I advocate that we abolish the pipeline to permit committee entirely. It is a waste of time and money and doesn't accomplish to objective it was created to. It is dead weight and it must be cut loose.