The Blue Agave Forum: The Blue Agave Forum -> The Mumpsimus Blog

Six thirty. That's when last night's council meeting ended. Shortest meeting I can recall this term - 90 minutes. Almost a breeze.

Ninety per cent of the meeting was simply a continuation of Thursday's six-hour planning/zoning bylaw marathon. That means the main topic under discussion - letters of consideration, comment and concern about provisions in the new zoning bylaw - took roughly seven hours in total to hear and discuss. There was really only that one topic of discussion on the agenda, last night - no public planning meeting, no delegations, no correspondence, no motions.

Each letter was presented individually in a bound document, complete with the planning department's comments and suggested resolution. Thursday we barely got through half the letters in the inch-thick document. Last night we did the remaining half in an hour.

Maybe we weren't collectively in as cantankerous - or as voluble - a mood as we seem to have been, Thursday. Whatever the reason, last night we raced through the letters and were out of the chamber in record time. Maybe the tough issues were at the front of the binder. Very little controversy over the content last night (Thursday was far more interesting from that perspective).

Perhaps the only serious...

My, oh, my. Was I surprised when I read Councillor McNabb's vituperative column in today's Enterprise-Bulletin.

Titled, "Now is the time for mayor to roll up his sleeves," McNabb takes a double shot, one at his fellow councillors, the other at the mayor. The latter certainly takes the brunt of it.

What surprised me was not the criticism of the mayor, but criticism from someone who for the past three years has been described as "the mayor's man" - not merely an ardent supporter, but an apologist for and defender of the mayor at almost every turn.

These columns are a new feature cooked up by editor Ian Adams (aka Scoop) to give every member of council an opportunity to publicly and individually address issues, or simply outline his or her ideas and goals. I'm sure that annoys the mayor, because he sees himself as the sole voice of council and the town and has been very critical to date of my blog.

So far, council has responded with fairly mild content: none of the articles have been even vaguely controversial until now (well, I haven't had my turn yet, but I have this blog to vent my spleen, so I don't need the paper to do so). This changes the texture of the spot. It's now not merely a space for civilized...

It seemed such a simple thing. Cranberry Resort wanted to extend its liquor licence so guests at the Bear Estate could go outside with a drink. Not to roam everywhere; the space was limited to a small area adjacent to the back of the building. Seems logical enough: on a nice summer afternoon, why would people at, say, a wedding, want to be indoors when beautiful Collingwood beckons just outside?

It wasn't an expansion of the activity space - the site plan agreement demands all events have to take place indoors, with the doors shut. That constraint was written in response to neighbour complaints about noise. This would just be a place for guests to get some fresh air, maybe smoke if they wanted, mingle, and converse. The doors would still be closed.

It wasn't a space to serve alcohol, either. Just a place outdoors for guests to get away from the crowd and enjoy a drink in the open air. Maybe watch the sunset, or gaze across the bay to the elevators. The motion called for it to be available only from noon* until 8 p.m., too, so it wouldn't mean a large group of people outdoors, late at night.

And it wouldn't mean an increase in the number of guests, either. This is an ancillary use to the existing conditions, not an added use, so the fire...

Another six-hour council marathon last night. And even with that amount of time, by the end of the night we still had not covered everything on the agenda. We broke off in the early part of the comprehensive zoning bylaw "workshop," with many areas still remaining to discuss.

Started at 5 p.m., adjourned at 11. There had been people in the audience waiting all night for some of these items to come forward for discussion. Instead, they went home, likely frustrated at the time spent waiting for something that never even came up.

The structure of the meeting was awkward. After roughly four hours, we broke away from the public view to spend more than one hour behind closed doors with our lawyer, discussing several property-related and legal issues. During that time, the audience, the media and many members of staff simply had to wait. We returned to attempt to finish the remainder of the agenda.

Surely it would have been better to hold the in-camera session at the start, say begin early at 4 p.m. That way our lawyer can leave if he is no longer required - and we're not paying him $600-plus an hour to wait for his time to come. It would mean there is no break in the continuity of the remainder of the meeting.

It would also mean staff could...