0
War of words: Carrier vs Assaff continues
15 April 2010
Got an email late yesterday with the mayor's comments in response to Steve Assaff's comments on the mayor's comments about the Admiral Collingwood development... got that? Anyway, I got the press release the mayor sent from an outside source, since it appears council and staff wasn't copied with it.
The mayor sent out his "media release" from his business office email address. So is this an 'official' response or a personal one? It says "Mayor Chris Carrier Responds..." but because of the source and the select audience of recipients, should the media treat it as a personal or an official comment? Can an individual rather than the head of council send out a "media release" and be taken seriously (if so, watch for mine to be in your inbox soon...)?
A brief synopsis of the story to date (only my opinion, of course, since the mayor has taken ownership of the 'facts'):
Okay, this is ramping up to be a majorpissing contest debate for the upcoming election. And, as expected, the Admiral Collingwood development - or rather the lack of it - will be the number one issue for many people in this community.*
The simple conclusion for most of us - the mayor's "facts" aside - is that there's a water-filled pit at the end of the main street instead of a signature building full of tenants and shops all paying taxes to the town. It doesn't matter how the tale gets rationalized or the actions justified. The result is visible for the taxpayers and voters to see every day.
Here's the release, with a few of my own comments interspersed:
All decisions were and are made by a majority of council - funny that it doesn't seem to register that the decision to approve the project was also made by a majority of the previous council. So it appears there are two forms of 'democracy' - that practiced by former councils, which is bad, and that practiced by this one, which is good. A majority last term isn't equal to a majority this term.
Another key point to keep in mind: the approvals last term came at the end of many open public meetings, presentations, staff reports and open discussion at the council table. When the mayor made his motion to repeal those approvals, he would allow no public input into the discussion. Later public outrage over his action was summarily dismissed.
And again: the mayor made the motion to repeal the permits. That alone was unprecedented in our municipal history. He set himself up as the leader in this by doing so. It seems he is now trying to push the responsibility onto the rest of council for the outcome.
The HIA was approved by a majority of the previous council. That approval was based on the recommendations in the consultant's report, after lengthy discussion and public meetings. It was done openly, legally and democratically. The mayor didn't agree with either that majority or with the consultant, so in this council the permissions were repealled and a more compliant consultant found.
Without the HIA, the development could not proceed. It was like taking the engine out of a car and saying, but you have a full gas tank, why aren't you driving? Nothing could proceed without it.
Semantics is the study or science of meaning in language, and the relationships between what signs and symbols represent. The colloquial use is "the meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form." In other words, you sat po-tah-to I say po-tay-to. "Semantics" aside, there's still a hole in the ground locally dubbed 'Carrier's Pond,' where a development might be today, had the HIA not been repealled in 2007.
Poor public you: you're still confused by a different opinion. Fortunately we have the mayor's 'facts' to clarify things.
That last part is a canard. No one is suggesting that the developer was trying to "buy" an OMB decision.
That 'local group' was VOTE, the same group the then-councillor-now-mayor publicly donated money to, to help fund this challenge. This group is widely believed to have been instrumental in his election success. Once he was elected, the group basically had no reason to exist. It ceased to function as a council watchdog, fell apart, and has since dissolved.
If an OMB challenge is considered inappropriate or frivolous, then the board can award the defendant costs. Since board challenges can be very expensive - both sides would have had to pay for lawyers, planners, consultants, etc. - had the VOTE group lost (which is possible perhaps even probable) and the board so decided, it could have been saddled with more than $100,000 in legal costs. Plus the group would have had to raise funds to pay for its own planner and consultant, maybe even a lawyer or two to make the challenge.
Is it coincidence then that, just before this controversial and potentially expensive challenge was to start, the mayor moved to repeal the approval and save the group he supported from possibly crippling legal bills?
That saccharine first statement strikes me as a bit hypocritical. It's so wonderful and attractive that we won't allow it to go ahead until it's downsized, and made less attractive than originally proposed. The public as I recall was firmly behind the original proposal - certainly the BIA sent letters of support for it - only a small handful opposed it.
Give me the ball, now finish the game...
Comparing the waterfront with the downtown is apples and oranges, and I should comment on that in another post or a later reply.
Which is not an official town website, of course, but rather a personal pre-campaign function. But it has the "facts" we're told.
Well, I agree with the first part. I never disputed the sincerity or passion of anyone on council. The second part - well, let's not talk about all the closed-door decisions or lack of public input into major issues right now. Suffice to say I think that 'commitment to democracy' has been a trifle thin this term.
~~~~~
* Certainly it will be for the 2,500-plus residents who signed a petition to reinstate the approvals, but who the mayor brushed of as merely people who "voted for the other guy" in the recent election.
The mayor sent out his "media release" from his business office email address. So is this an 'official' response or a personal one? It says "Mayor Chris Carrier Responds..." but because of the source and the select audience of recipients, should the media treat it as a personal or an official comment? Can an individual rather than the head of council send out a "media release" and be taken seriously (if so, watch for mine to be in your inbox soon...)?
A brief synopsis of the story to date (only my opinion, of course, since the mayor has taken ownership of the 'facts'):
- The previous Council democratically and legally after several public meetings approved the development at the corner of Hume and Hurontario Streets as suitable for the community, as meeting the heritage guidelines as per the consultant's report, and as being a positive economic and social component of the downtown. This was a dual project including one part with 100 condos and a large commercial-office component on the west side, and a large seniors' lifestyle component with more modest retail and commercial space on the east side.
- The development was not made an issue in any of the election campaigns that fall, including the mayor's. He did not mention once the notion of repealling any approvals for it.
- In the first three months of this term, the mayor made a motion to repeal the heritage approval, causing the development to stop, and forcing the developers to come back with completely revised drawings and plans for a smaller-scale, less-attractive development that met the mayor's approval. This action was seconded by Councillor Jeffrey and supported by Councillors Edwards, McNabb and Foley.
- The development suffered a two-year delay as a result of this action, and although a second version was finally approved, the Recession of 2008-2009 hit before it could get any further. In between, the delay forced the developer to refund deposits on condominiums and commercial space and lose the large commercial anchor. It also allowed competing seniors' developments to be completed in other parts of the community, basically making the seniors' component on the east side of the property non-competitive, and cause it to be indefinitely postponed.
- Last month, the mayor launched a new pre-campaign website with his view of the story as to why the downtown Admiral Collingwood development was scuttled. He called his comments "facts" and labelled everything else as "opinions." He noted that Council had not "killed" the development, but instead allowed it to proceed.
- The developer responded with a counterpoint version of his take on the story, including challenges to the mayor's alleged "facts."
- This week the mayor responded to Mr. Assaff's response, reiterating that his are the only "facts" and stating that "Any choice to not proceed over the past two years, has been the choice of the developers and the developers alone."
Okay, this is ramping up to be a major
The simple conclusion for most of us - the mayor's "facts" aside - is that there's a water-filled pit at the end of the main street instead of a signature building full of tenants and shops all paying taxes to the town. It doesn't matter how the tale gets rationalized or the actions justified. The result is visible for the taxpayers and voters to see every day.
Here's the release, with a few of my own comments interspersed:
Quote
MEDIA RELEASE
For Immediate Release – April 13, 2010
Mayor Chris Carrier Responds to Admiral Collingwood Developer’s Comments
In his response to the facts presented on my website regarding the Admiral Development process, Mr. Assaff has blamed the development’s halt on an economic downturn and additionally, upon myself. I find that disappointing because, what he fails to acknowledge is that all decisions were made by a majority of council with respect to this prime development location in the heart of Collingwood’s renowned Heritage District.
For Immediate Release – April 13, 2010
Mayor Chris Carrier Responds to Admiral Collingwood Developer’s Comments
In his response to the facts presented on my website regarding the Admiral Development process, Mr. Assaff has blamed the development’s halt on an economic downturn and additionally, upon myself. I find that disappointing because, what he fails to acknowledge is that all decisions were made by a majority of council with respect to this prime development location in the heart of Collingwood’s renowned Heritage District.
All decisions were and are made by a majority of council - funny that it doesn't seem to register that the decision to approve the project was also made by a majority of the previous council. So it appears there are two forms of 'democracy' - that practiced by former councils, which is bad, and that practiced by this one, which is good. A majority last term isn't equal to a majority this term.
Another key point to keep in mind: the approvals last term came at the end of many open public meetings, presentations, staff reports and open discussion at the council table. When the mayor made his motion to repeal those approvals, he would allow no public input into the discussion. Later public outrage over his action was summarily dismissed.
And again: the mayor made the motion to repeal the permits. That alone was unprecedented in our municipal history. He set himself up as the leader in this by doing so. It seems he is now trying to push the responsibility onto the rest of council for the outcome.
Quote
Mr. Assaff repeatedly suggests that all approvals for his project were in hand at the time the current council was elected. This is where semantics come into play. As I explained on my website, there were approvals in place however, they were subject to several conditions that were not met by that time. Also, he fails to clarify that this council did not revoke those same approvals; they repealed acceptance of the Heritage Impact Assessment, which was merely one of the conditions.
The HIA was approved by a majority of the previous council. That approval was based on the recommendations in the consultant's report, after lengthy discussion and public meetings. It was done openly, legally and democratically. The mayor didn't agree with either that majority or with the consultant, so in this council the permissions were repealled and a more compliant consultant found.
Without the HIA, the development could not proceed. It was like taking the engine out of a car and saying, but you have a full gas tank, why aren't you driving? Nothing could proceed without it.
Semantics is the study or science of meaning in language, and the relationships between what signs and symbols represent. The colloquial use is "the meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form." In other words, you sat po-tah-to I say po-tay-to. "Semantics" aside, there's still a hole in the ground locally dubbed 'Carrier's Pond,' where a development might be today, had the HIA not been repealled in 2007.
Quote
Following the negotiated settlement, Mr. Assaff correctly states that these approvals were conditional upon the payment of required funds. The completion of the development’s approvals was dependent upon those payments being made - and - because he did not make those payments, the approvals never came into effect. Again, this is pure semantics which is unfortunate as they only serve to confuse the public. Quite simply, the building permits were never “in force” because the payments were not made.
Poor public you: you're still confused by a different opinion. Fortunately we have the mayor's 'facts' to clarify things.
Quote
Mr. Assaff’s assertions are not entirely based on fact but upon a series of “what ifs,” for example:
• “Had we been able to start…after an OMB decision.”
We can never know when the hearing would have started or what the outcome would have been. We do know that the legal advice Council received was that the appeal to the development by a local group of citizens had a strong likelihood of succeeding. To imply that the costs would have exceeded $250,000.00 is certainly intimidating and impressive, but the OMB process is designed to hear objections based upon good planning evidence - not the size of one’s bank account. I do not believe anyone can buy a decision at the Ontario Municipal Board.
• “Had we been able to start…after an OMB decision.”
We can never know when the hearing would have started or what the outcome would have been. We do know that the legal advice Council received was that the appeal to the development by a local group of citizens had a strong likelihood of succeeding. To imply that the costs would have exceeded $250,000.00 is certainly intimidating and impressive, but the OMB process is designed to hear objections based upon good planning evidence - not the size of one’s bank account. I do not believe anyone can buy a decision at the Ontario Municipal Board.
That last part is a canard. No one is suggesting that the developer was trying to "buy" an OMB decision.
That 'local group' was VOTE, the same group the then-councillor-now-mayor publicly donated money to, to help fund this challenge. This group is widely believed to have been instrumental in his election success. Once he was elected, the group basically had no reason to exist. It ceased to function as a council watchdog, fell apart, and has since dissolved.
If an OMB challenge is considered inappropriate or frivolous, then the board can award the defendant costs. Since board challenges can be very expensive - both sides would have had to pay for lawyers, planners, consultants, etc. - had the VOTE group lost (which is possible perhaps even probable) and the board so decided, it could have been saddled with more than $100,000 in legal costs. Plus the group would have had to raise funds to pay for its own planner and consultant, maybe even a lawyer or two to make the challenge.
Is it coincidence then that, just before this controversial and potentially expensive challenge was to start, the mayor moved to repeal the approval and save the group he supported from possibly crippling legal bills?
Quote
I believe that Admiral Place is a wonderful and quite attractive development proposal. The strong economic spin off and support to the main street is the type of development that is needed but, not at the expense of the values and policies that were put in place for the district with strong public support.
That saccharine first statement strikes me as a bit hypocritical. It's so wonderful and attractive that we won't allow it to go ahead until it's downsized, and made less attractive than originally proposed. The public as I recall was firmly behind the original proposal - certainly the BIA sent letters of support for it - only a small handful opposed it.
Quote
In regard to the project being on hold due to the economic climate, other new developments, such as The Shipyards among others, have moved forward, with sales meeting or exceeding targets. Any choice to not proceed over the past two years, has been the choice of the developers and the developers alone.
Give me the ball, now finish the game...
Comparing the waterfront with the downtown is apples and oranges, and I should comment on that in another post or a later reply.
Quote
The facts surrounding this development’s approval process remain available to the public on my website, together with a timeline and a scale drawing of the original building design.
Which is not an official town website, of course, but rather a personal pre-campaign function. But it has the "facts" we're told.
Quote
The Mayor and Collingwood Council remain committed to our electorate, serving with honesty, integrity, sincerity and passion. Our well documented voting records speak to our commitment to democracy in our town.
Well, I agree with the first part. I never disputed the sincerity or passion of anyone on council. The second part - well, let's not talk about all the closed-door decisions or lack of public input into major issues right now. Suffice to say I think that 'commitment to democracy' has been a trifle thin this term.
~~~~~
* Certainly it will be for the 2,500-plus residents who signed a petition to reinstate the approvals, but who the mayor brushed of as merely people who "voted for the other guy" in the recent election.
