0
Steve Assaff replies to the mayor's web site comments
08 April 2010
I received a nine-page letter today from Steve Assaff, today, responding to comments on the mayor's website about the Admiral Collingwood project.
Steve, as many of you know, is the would-be developer of the downtown Admiral Collingwood project. That was supposed to be the jewel of the downtown - commercial and residential infill growth, along with the adjacent Scott Stranholdt's seniors' complex. But both projects got stalled - some say killed - when this council repealled the permits the previous council had given to allow the two to go ahead.
In response to this, Mayor Carrier's newly revamped website purports to tell the "facts" of why the development approvals got repealled, noting:
Steve took umbrage over the mayor's presentation of what he calls "facts" and disagrees sharply with much of what the mayor presents. You can read the entire PDF of Steve's comments here, but let me give you a few selections to whet your appetite:
As far as I know, this was the first time in Collingwood a mayor had been the mover of a motion. At least of one of this magnitude.
Okay, so it isn't dead. That's good news. But it's been on life support for the past three years! Won't happen anytime during this administration, however. And what does get built may be a long way short of the exceptional project first proposed. I suspect a much smaller, less ambitious and certainly less attractive project will come forward.
Okay, to be fair, that debt is not entirely the mayor's fault: all of council has to share in it. And some of it will be funded by development charges, although some of the costs will be paid by higher taxes, user fees and higher sewer and water charges.
Ah VOTE. Steve has more to say about that group and their OMB challenge (to which then-councillor Carrier very publicly donated $100 to help them challenge the town):
Steve also makes a telling point about the consultants who were in the middle ground in this battle: they aren't elected; they're merely hired to advise.
You can compare the former and the latter designs yourself, in his letter.
Steve contends that there were wider effects within the development community as a result of the repealled approvals:
I can't back that up with statistics right now, but I've heard similar comments from others in the development community.
He also notes that, in June 2008, "The Site Development Agreement was signed and the securities were posted."
Steve concludes with some powerful shots across this council's bow, with of course, direct aim at the mayor:
I've said before, killing - or delaying if you prefer - this project became the mayor's albatross, but it will also hang heavily on those who voted to repeal the approvals of the previous council, should they choose to re-enter the ring this election*.
~~~~~
* Moved by Mayor Carrier, seconded by Councillor Jeffrey. Voting to repeal the approvals: Mayor Carrier, Councillors Edwards, Jeffrey, Foley, McNabb. Against: Deputy Mayor Cooper, Councillors Labelle and Chadwick. Councillor Sandberg declared a conflict of interest and left the table.
Steve, as many of you know, is the would-be developer of the downtown Admiral Collingwood project. That was supposed to be the jewel of the downtown - commercial and residential infill growth, along with the adjacent Scott Stranholdt's seniors' complex. But both projects got stalled - some say killed - when this council repealled the permits the previous council had given to allow the two to go ahead.
In response to this, Mayor Carrier's newly revamped website purports to tell the "facts" of why the development approvals got repealled, noting:
Quote
This has been a complex planning matter and it is understandable that people are confused and that misinformation about the facts of this matter continue to circulate. Everyone has an opinion, that’s for sure.
But, while everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, there is only one set of facts.
But, while everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, there is only one set of facts.
Steve took umbrage over the mayor's presentation of what he calls "facts" and disagrees sharply with much of what the mayor presents. You can read the entire PDF of Steve's comments here, but let me give you a few selections to whet your appetite:
Quote
To my knowledge no Council has ever reversed a previous Council’s decision. Mayor Carrier clearly had a hidden agenda as his campaign platform NEVER mentioned the fact that his top priority would be to reverse previous Council’s approvals. Furthermore, to my knowledge, no mayor has ever moved a motion. Not only did Mayor Carrier support the reversal but he went so far as to move the motion.
As far as I know, this was the first time in Collingwood a mayor had been the mover of a motion. At least of one of this magnitude.
Quote
The current Council did not "kill this development" as the location of this property in the heart of downtown Collingwood, together with the development concept, will ensure that a development will occur there... someday! What Mayor Carrier did do is delay the project by two years which resulted in us being exposed to the worldwide financial crisis in the fall of 2008, and at this time it is unknown how long the project will be delayed because of his actions.
Okay, so it isn't dead. That's good news. But it's been on life support for the past three years! Won't happen anytime during this administration, however. And what does get built may be a long way short of the exceptional project first proposed. I suspect a much smaller, less ambitious and certainly less attractive project will come forward.
Quote
Mayor Carrier: This development has been approved, with no outstanding appeals of the planning decisions since July, 2008. Any decisions not to proceed since that time have been decisions of the developers whom to this day have chosen not to apply for building permits.
Stephen Assaff: The mayor states "whom to this day have chosen not to apply for building permits." This FACT that the Mayor lists is FALSE AND MISLEADING!!! In FACT we had applied to the Building Department for the permit. Mr. Bill Plewes, as Building Inspector issued the permit! It was ready for pickup and all that was required was a cheque for $1.3 million dollars payable to the Town. We obviously chose not to pay for it when the project was on hold!
In FACT Bill Plewes had to go back to Council to submit a revised building permit activity report as a result of having to cancel the issued permit. Perhaps Mayor Carrier was too busy running up the debenture debt of the Town (from $17,000,000.00 at the start of his term to the expected excess of $50,000,000.00 at the end of his term !) to notice the cancellation of our building permit?
Stephen Assaff: The mayor states "whom to this day have chosen not to apply for building permits." This FACT that the Mayor lists is FALSE AND MISLEADING!!! In FACT we had applied to the Building Department for the permit. Mr. Bill Plewes, as Building Inspector issued the permit! It was ready for pickup and all that was required was a cheque for $1.3 million dollars payable to the Town. We obviously chose not to pay for it when the project was on hold!
In FACT Bill Plewes had to go back to Council to submit a revised building permit activity report as a result of having to cancel the issued permit. Perhaps Mayor Carrier was too busy running up the debenture debt of the Town (from $17,000,000.00 at the start of his term to the expected excess of $50,000,000.00 at the end of his term !) to notice the cancellation of our building permit?
Okay, to be fair, that debt is not entirely the mayor's fault: all of council has to share in it. And some of it will be funded by development charges, although some of the costs will be paid by higher taxes, user fees and higher sewer and water charges.
Quote
Mayor Carrier: In order to understand what really happened, it’s necessary to know that the actions of the current council on this file hinged on three facts that were in existence at the time this council was sworn in:
1) All final approvals for the development were NOT in place, as the developer had not yet complied with certain conditions imposed by the former Council. The project was NOT in a position to proceed.
Stephen Assaff: All final APPROVALS from the Town of Collingwood and The County of Simcoe WERE in place. Of course there were certain CONDITIONS such as paying the Town $1.4 million to sign the site development agreement and $1.3 million to get a building permit that was not complied with. What did he expect? We were still under appeal to the O.M.B. by the VOTE Group!
1) All final approvals for the development were NOT in place, as the developer had not yet complied with certain conditions imposed by the former Council. The project was NOT in a position to proceed.
Stephen Assaff: All final APPROVALS from the Town of Collingwood and The County of Simcoe WERE in place. Of course there were certain CONDITIONS such as paying the Town $1.4 million to sign the site development agreement and $1.3 million to get a building permit that was not complied with. What did he expect? We were still under appeal to the O.M.B. by the VOTE Group!
Ah VOTE. Steve has more to say about that group and their OMB challenge (to which then-councillor Carrier very publicly donated $100 to help them challenge the town):
Quote
Speaking of the O.M.B. appeal by the VOTE Group; everyone acknowledges that the VOTE Group helped get Mayor Carrier elected. Interesting then that the first act of the Mayor was to reverse our approvals followed by the VOTE group's withdrawal of their appeals!!
Who would have funded the minimum $250,000.00 cost of the Vote Group’s appeal had they actually had to pay for the lawyers, planners, architects and heritage consultants to testify at the Ontario Municipal Board? It is very important to remember that the Vote Group was appealing our approvals from the Town and the County, which are not easily overturned at the O.M.B.
Contrary to Mayor Carrier’s opinion, our advice was that they had a very weak case. In fact, former Mayor and O.M.B. Chairman Ron Emo told me that intensification of the Town’s core would trump the Heritage argument. In his (very knowledgeable) opinion.
Who would have funded the minimum $250,000.00 cost of the Vote Group’s appeal had they actually had to pay for the lawyers, planners, architects and heritage consultants to testify at the Ontario Municipal Board? It is very important to remember that the Vote Group was appealing our approvals from the Town and the County, which are not easily overturned at the O.M.B.
Contrary to Mayor Carrier’s opinion, our advice was that they had a very weak case. In fact, former Mayor and O.M.B. Chairman Ron Emo told me that intensification of the Town’s core would trump the Heritage argument. In his (very knowledgeable) opinion.
Steve also makes a telling point about the consultants who were in the middle ground in this battle: they aren't elected; they're merely hired to advise.
Quote
The Mayor goes on and on about the Heritage Advisory committee comments. The fact of the matter is they are non-elected volunteers who advise council. At the end of the day our elected officials decide what is good for the town as a whole, not only from a Heritage consideration. Suffice to say most small towns would be jumping with joy if someone proposed a $75 million dollar development to anchor a weak end of their downtown core.
The Mayor mentions their Heritage Consultants of Su Murdoch, David Eckler and Robert Martondale. These are the experts that represented the Town in the mediated re-design of the building. Which design do you like best? It is interesting to note that when the Town’s Heritage Advisory Committee did not approve of David Eckler’s opinion regarding arched windows on the main floor of the new library......they overruled him. So that would leave one to believe that they only take his advice when they agree with him.
The Mayor mentions their Heritage Consultants of Su Murdoch, David Eckler and Robert Martondale. These are the experts that represented the Town in the mediated re-design of the building. Which design do you like best? It is interesting to note that when the Town’s Heritage Advisory Committee did not approve of David Eckler’s opinion regarding arched windows on the main floor of the new library......they overruled him. So that would leave one to believe that they only take his advice when they agree with him.
You can compare the former and the latter designs yourself, in his letter.
Steve contends that there were wider effects within the development community as a result of the repealled approvals:
Quote
It is no secret in the development community that because of this Mayor and Council; Collingwood is a place to avoid trying to do business in. You have an agreement with Council and oops, no you don’t! A new Council reverses the previous Council’s approvals.
I can't back that up with statistics right now, but I've heard similar comments from others in the development community.
He also notes that, in June 2008, "The Site Development Agreement was signed and the securities were posted."
Steve concludes with some powerful shots across this council's bow, with of course, direct aim at the mayor:
Quote
The result of Mayor Carrier's actions to reverse our previous approvals is the current hole in the ground. Had we been able to start to build in the spring of 2007 after the O.M.B.’s decision (assuming that the Vote Group could have funded the $250,000.00 cost) the building would have been finished before the economic events of the fall of 2008. It has been calculated that the total tax revenue from both sides of the development would be approximately $750,000.00 per year. At the time the project was put on hold the ground floor commercial space was 80% leased to Shoppers Drug Mart, Bank of Montreal and Nesbitt Burns. All of these companies were expanding their current operations and hiring additional staff. So the answer is YES there has been millions of dollars in lost tax revenue and lost jobs as a result of your actions!
Funny thing, we were encouraged to apply for our development by the former Mayor and Council. They approved our plan and so did the County. Had you not reversed those approvals the building would have been built, occupied and generating tax revenues and jobs.
The Province and County are encouraging municipalities to intensify development in their cores rather than continual Urban sprawl. In particular they encourage mixed use buildings with commercial on the main floor with residential above as extremely good planning in urban cores.
We are quite confident that with Municipal and County approvals for our project, the O.M.B. would have upheld those approvals. Comments from former Mayor and O.M.B. Chairman Ron Emo would support that view. Everyone I speak with acknowledges that this was an attack on me - Steve Assaff - personally. Mayor Carrier’s actions had nothing to do with whether this project was good for our town, YES OR NO? As a result of these actions the Business’ that wanted to expand, the families that had purchased homes, the families that planned to purchase homes, the planned retirement home for senior’s in the downtown has all been put on hold. I am quite confident that the electorate of the Town of Collingwood will demand a change of leadership and around the Council table this fall. Then perhaps the next Mayor and Council will do exactly as this one has - reverse a previous Council’s decision.
Funny thing, we were encouraged to apply for our development by the former Mayor and Council. They approved our plan and so did the County. Had you not reversed those approvals the building would have been built, occupied and generating tax revenues and jobs.
The Province and County are encouraging municipalities to intensify development in their cores rather than continual Urban sprawl. In particular they encourage mixed use buildings with commercial on the main floor with residential above as extremely good planning in urban cores.
We are quite confident that with Municipal and County approvals for our project, the O.M.B. would have upheld those approvals. Comments from former Mayor and O.M.B. Chairman Ron Emo would support that view. Everyone I speak with acknowledges that this was an attack on me - Steve Assaff - personally. Mayor Carrier’s actions had nothing to do with whether this project was good for our town, YES OR NO? As a result of these actions the Business’ that wanted to expand, the families that had purchased homes, the families that planned to purchase homes, the planned retirement home for senior’s in the downtown has all been put on hold. I am quite confident that the electorate of the Town of Collingwood will demand a change of leadership and around the Council table this fall. Then perhaps the next Mayor and Council will do exactly as this one has - reverse a previous Council’s decision.
I've said before, killing - or delaying if you prefer - this project became the mayor's albatross, but it will also hang heavily on those who voted to repeal the approvals of the previous council, should they choose to re-enter the ring this election*.
~~~~~
* Moved by Mayor Carrier, seconded by Councillor Jeffrey. Voting to repeal the approvals: Mayor Carrier, Councillors Edwards, Jeffrey, Foley, McNabb. Against: Deputy Mayor Cooper, Councillors Labelle and Chadwick. Councillor Sandberg declared a conflict of interest and left the table.
