0
Back at you: Assaff responds to Carrier's media release
15 April 2010
I won't comment on this, the latest broadside in the ongoing war of words between Carrier and Assaff over the repeal of the approvals for the downtown Admiral Collingwood development. I have not changed anything of the following, merely reproduced what was sent to me by email.
Suffice to say the text in bold is Steve's response to the mayor's media release comments, which are in Roman text.
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.
THE MAYOR IS STILL BLAMING OTHERS FOR HIS HIDDEN AGENDA AND THE FACT THAT HIS FIRST ACT AS MAYOR WAS TO MOVE THE MOTION WHICH WAS SUPPORTED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR JEFFREY TO REVERSE THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL’S APPROVALS OF THE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
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 Also, he fails to clarify that this council did not revoke those same approvals; they repealed acceptance of the Heritage Impact Assessment, which was merely one of the conditions.
HIS WEBSITE CLEARLY STATES THAT ALL APPROVALS WERE NOT IN PLACE. AS I POINTED OUT IN MY RESPONSE THAT ALL APPROVALS WERE IN FACT IN PLACE AND THAT ONLY SOME CONDITIONS REMAINED TO BE SATISFIED. AT LEAST HE NOW ADMITS THAT HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENT WAS INCORRECT.
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.
THE MAYOR IS CLEARLY CONFUSED AND I WILL NOW TRY TO CLARIFY HIS CONFUSION; ALL OF OUR APPROVALS BY THE FORMER COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE WERE IN PLACE AND OF COURSE REQUIRED US TO PAY THE TOWN OF COLLINGWOOD THE REQUIRED FUNDS TO SIGN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AS I EXPLAINED IN MY PREVIOUS RESPONSE, ALL OF THOSE APPROVALS WERE UNDER APPEAL TO THE O.M.B. BY THE MAYOR’S FRIENDS AT THE VOTE GROUP. THERE WAS NO REASON TO PAY THE TOWN THE 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS OWED AS NOTHING COULD HAPPEN UNTIL THE APPEAL TO THE O.M.B. WAS ADJUDICATED. OF COURSE AS SOON AS THE MAYOR MOVED HIS MOTION / SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR JEFFREY, TO REVERSE OUR PREVIOUS APPROVALS - HIS FRIENDS AT THE VOTE GROUP WITHDREW THEIR APPEALS TO THE O.M.B.
TO FURTHER CLARIFY HIS FALSE AND MISLEADING RESPONSE - FOLLOWING THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT THE FUNDS OWING THE TOWN WERE IN FACT PAID AND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED!!! SO, IN FACT CONTRARY TO HIS FALSE STATEMENTS ON HIS WEBSITE WE DID APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT AND IN FACT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED. AS I EXPLAINED IN MY PREVIOUS RESPONSE, AS A RESULT OF ALL OF THE DELAYS CAUSED BY THE MAYOR’S MOTION TO APPEAL OUR PREVIOUS APPROVALS - WE WERE THEN EXPOSED TO THE ECONOMIC EVENTS OF THE FALL OF 2008 AND PUT THE PROJECT ON HOLD. AS A RESULT THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS CANCELLED.
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.
REGARDING THE MAYOR’S COMMENTS ON LEGAL COSTS, HE BETTER THAN ANYONE SHOULD KNOW THE COST OF LEGAL ADVICE. JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE ENORMOUS $11,412.00 COSTS THE TOWN PAID FOR LEGAL ADVICE ON A SIMPLE QUESTION REGARDING THE TOWN’S MUNICIPAL PROCEDURAL BYLAW. IMAGINE A LENGTHY WEEK’S LONG O.M.B. HEARING THAT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED LAWYERS, PLANNERS AND ARCHITECTS AND ONE CAN EASILY COME TO THE $250,000.00 ESTIMATE THAT MY CONSULTANTS SUGGESTED.
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.
TOO BAD THE MAYOR DIDN’T FEEL THIS WAY BEFORE HE CAUSED THE DELAYS TO THE PROJECT WHICH HAS RESULTED IN IT BEING PUT ON HOLD INDEFINITELY. HE IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL REDESIGN OF THE BUILDING THAT MOST PEOPLE FEEL IS INFERIOR TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
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.
WITH REGARDS TO THE SHIPYARDS PROJECT MOVING FORWARD AND EXCEEDING SALES TARGETS I FIND IT VERY IRONIC THAT THE MAYOR IS NOW TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT HE FOUGHT AGAINST AND CAUSED ENORMOUS DELAYS TO. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE SHIPYARD DEVELOPMENT’S APPROVALS WERE HELD UP FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
The facts surrounding this development’s approval process remain available to the public on my website, together with a time line and a scale drawing of the original building design.
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.
I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT THE WELL DOCUMENTED VOTING RECORDS CONCERNING THE ADMIRAL COLLINGWOOD DEVELOPMENT SPEAK LOUDLY AND WILL ENABLE THE ELECTORATE OF THE TOWN OF COLLINGWOOD TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS REGARDING THE UPCOMING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
~~~~~
A postscript: then-councillor Carrier fought vehemently against taking ownership of the berm in the Shipyards - which could have seriously held up the agreements and later development of the site, had he been successful in preventing it. There was a note of irony expressed among the media at seeing his picture taken at the top of the berm smiling with the developer's representatives during a recent tour of the site, just as there has been when hearing his comments about the wonderful new library that he, as councillor, vehemently opposed building.
Suffice to say the text in bold is Steve's response to the mayor's media release comments, which are in Roman text.
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.
THE MAYOR IS STILL BLAMING OTHERS FOR HIS HIDDEN AGENDA AND THE FACT THAT HIS FIRST ACT AS MAYOR WAS TO MOVE THE MOTION WHICH WAS SUPPORTED AND SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR JEFFREY TO REVERSE THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL’S APPROVALS OF THE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
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.
HIS WEBSITE CLEARLY STATES THAT ALL APPROVALS WERE NOT IN PLACE. AS I POINTED OUT IN MY RESPONSE THAT ALL APPROVALS WERE IN FACT IN PLACE AND THAT ONLY SOME CONDITIONS REMAINED TO BE SATISFIED. AT LEAST HE NOW ADMITS THAT HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENT WAS INCORRECT.
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.
THE MAYOR IS CLEARLY CONFUSED AND I WILL NOW TRY TO CLARIFY HIS CONFUSION; ALL OF OUR APPROVALS BY THE FORMER COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE WERE IN PLACE AND OF COURSE REQUIRED US TO PAY THE TOWN OF COLLINGWOOD THE REQUIRED FUNDS TO SIGN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AS I EXPLAINED IN MY PREVIOUS RESPONSE, ALL OF THOSE APPROVALS WERE UNDER APPEAL TO THE O.M.B. BY THE MAYOR’S FRIENDS AT THE VOTE GROUP. THERE WAS NO REASON TO PAY THE TOWN THE 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS OWED AS NOTHING COULD HAPPEN UNTIL THE APPEAL TO THE O.M.B. WAS ADJUDICATED. OF COURSE AS SOON AS THE MAYOR MOVED HIS MOTION / SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR JEFFREY, TO REVERSE OUR PREVIOUS APPROVALS - HIS FRIENDS AT THE VOTE GROUP WITHDREW THEIR APPEALS TO THE O.M.B.
TO FURTHER CLARIFY HIS FALSE AND MISLEADING RESPONSE - FOLLOWING THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT THE FUNDS OWING THE TOWN WERE IN FACT PAID AND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED!!! SO, IN FACT CONTRARY TO HIS FALSE STATEMENTS ON HIS WEBSITE WE DID APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT AND IN FACT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED. AS I EXPLAINED IN MY PREVIOUS RESPONSE, AS A RESULT OF ALL OF THE DELAYS CAUSED BY THE MAYOR’S MOTION TO APPEAL OUR PREVIOUS APPROVALS - WE WERE THEN EXPOSED TO THE ECONOMIC EVENTS OF THE FALL OF 2008 AND PUT THE PROJECT ON HOLD. AS A RESULT THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS CANCELLED.
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.
REGARDING THE MAYOR’S COMMENTS ON LEGAL COSTS, HE BETTER THAN ANYONE SHOULD KNOW THE COST OF LEGAL ADVICE. JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE ENORMOUS $11,412.00 COSTS THE TOWN PAID FOR LEGAL ADVICE ON A SIMPLE QUESTION REGARDING THE TOWN’S MUNICIPAL PROCEDURAL BYLAW. IMAGINE A LENGTHY WEEK’S LONG O.M.B. HEARING THAT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED LAWYERS, PLANNERS AND ARCHITECTS AND ONE CAN EASILY COME TO THE $250,000.00 ESTIMATE THAT MY CONSULTANTS SUGGESTED.
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.
TOO BAD THE MAYOR DIDN’T FEEL THIS WAY BEFORE HE CAUSED THE DELAYS TO THE PROJECT WHICH HAS RESULTED IN IT BEING PUT ON HOLD INDEFINITELY. HE IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL REDESIGN OF THE BUILDING THAT MOST PEOPLE FEEL IS INFERIOR TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
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.
WITH REGARDS TO THE SHIPYARDS PROJECT MOVING FORWARD AND EXCEEDING SALES TARGETS I FIND IT VERY IRONIC THAT THE MAYOR IS NOW TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT HE FOUGHT AGAINST AND CAUSED ENORMOUS DELAYS TO. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE SHIPYARD DEVELOPMENT’S APPROVALS WERE HELD UP FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
The facts surrounding this development’s approval process remain available to the public on my website, together with a time line and a scale drawing of the original building design.
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.
I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT THE WELL DOCUMENTED VOTING RECORDS CONCERNING THE ADMIRAL COLLINGWOOD DEVELOPMENT SPEAK LOUDLY AND WILL ENABLE THE ELECTORATE OF THE TOWN OF COLLINGWOOD TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS REGARDING THE UPCOMING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
~~~~~
A postscript: then-councillor Carrier fought vehemently against taking ownership of the berm in the Shipyards - which could have seriously held up the agreements and later development of the site, had he been successful in preventing it. There was a note of irony expressed among the media at seeing his picture taken at the top of the berm smiling with the developer's representatives during a recent tour of the site, just as there has been when hearing his comments about the wonderful new library that he, as councillor, vehemently opposed building.
Watch as our mayor spins in a desperate attempt to save his political career.
Honesty, integrity, sincerity, passion. What happened to the buzz words of the last campaign.....open, transparent, accountable. Perhaps they just too hard to attain by one who starts with a secret agenda.