I see that the Bridge Co. is applying to have several homes in Ward 2 demolished because of the interim by-law imposed by the City. Of course, there really is no need for the Bridge Co. to apply to the City in my opinion since the matter has to do with an international bridge so Bill C-3 applies making it a federal matter.
It's really like the Rail Lands by-law issue where the City was able to stop DRTP from building a truck expressway along their corridor since it was for non-rail uses. The Bridge Co. needs to demolish the homes for bridge purposes so how can the City oppose?
I assume though that the Bridge Co. is acting out of courtesy with the City and for other reasons too.
Now the interesting question is whether the Mayor and Councillors will vote against them. [Will Eddie pull a move as he did in the Burger King matter so he has "clean hands" and let the other Councillors take the fall?]
It's really like the Rail Lands by-law issue where the City was able to stop DRTP from building a truck expressway along their corridor since it was for non-rail uses. The Bridge Co. needs to demolish the homes for bridge purposes so how can the City oppose?
I assume though that the Bridge Co. is acting out of courtesy with the City and for other reasons too.
Now the interesting question is whether the Mayor and Councillors will vote against them. [Will Eddie pull a move as he did in the Burger King matter so he has "clean hands" and let the other Councillors take the fall?]
According to the real head of Council, CAO John Skorobohacz in a CBC TV interview, if the "bridge applies for a building permit [for its bridge], it will be turned down." I assume therefore he would want to reject the demolition permits too. The Administration report does and he was one of the signatories.
Here is the fascinating part. The Administration Report says a building permit must be issued BEFORE a demolition permit can be applied for. The CAO has said that no building permit would ever be issued. Therefore the Bridge Co. could NEVER get a demolition permit no matter how good their proposal was!
Frankly, he knows that ultimately the Bridge Co. would win but an appeal takes time and that stalls the Bridge Co. plans doesn't it!
I must admit that I thought the CAO's job was to be seen and not heard! He is a mere functionary, not a decision-maker or did I miss that change in Eddie's Procedural By-law. It is absolutely presumptuous for him to open his mouth on a policy matter that is something that Council is to decide. If he wants to make decisions, let him run for office. Otherwise, he should be told firmly to keep quiet.
Anyway, is it too late for the City? As the Senior Administrator in the City, has he hurt the City's position fatally? The question now is whether the CAO has shown a bias and a prejudice against the Bridge Co. that will impact in any Administration recommendations published in Reports and will certainly make it hard for the Bridge Co. to be treated fairly. Accordingly, if so, to try and salvage the City's position, I would think at least one step to take is for the Mayor and Council to censure him immediately and in public and to disqualify him from any further matters involving the Bridge Co. In the circumstances. I believe that the Bridge Co. can make a legitmate claim against the City for "bad faith" and a denial of "natural justice."
Frankly, he knows that ultimately the Bridge Co. would win but an appeal takes time and that stalls the Bridge Co. plans doesn't it!
I must admit that I thought the CAO's job was to be seen and not heard! He is a mere functionary, not a decision-maker or did I miss that change in Eddie's Procedural By-law. It is absolutely presumptuous for him to open his mouth on a policy matter that is something that Council is to decide. If he wants to make decisions, let him run for office. Otherwise, he should be told firmly to keep quiet.
Anyway, is it too late for the City? As the Senior Administrator in the City, has he hurt the City's position fatally? The question now is whether the CAO has shown a bias and a prejudice against the Bridge Co. that will impact in any Administration recommendations published in Reports and will certainly make it hard for the Bridge Co. to be treated fairly. Accordingly, if so, to try and salvage the City's position, I would think at least one step to take is for the Mayor and Council to censure him immediately and in public and to disqualify him from any further matters involving the Bridge Co. In the circumstances. I believe that the Bridge Co. can make a legitmate claim against the City for "bad faith" and a denial of "natural justice."
Hmmm perhaps this should also be discussed in the Pay for Performance section of the Agenda too.
Mind you, do you think now that the CAO has signalled his intentions that anyone will dare defy him unless Council tells staff that his comments are to be ignored. His remarks may have made matters intolerable!
Now how can an elected official or a CAO for that matter turn something down in advance without knowing anything about it. It's easy if you are a Windsor Councillor---you read all about the Bridge Co. plans on BLOGs since you just refuse to meet to be educated about it. (I have heard that the Bridge Co. will make a presentation now at Council on the 11th. I wonder why there was this big switch in attitude. Is it real or just pretend?)
Unfortunately, for the Ward 2 Councillors in particular, there is a big problem. While they are anti-Bridge Co., they are supposedly pro-constituents. And what did the constituents have to say about homes owned by the Bridge Co. at the public session in Sandwich....Well the Councillors will never know. They chose not to attend the meeting where "Other residents questioned the company on its plans for property it has purchased in Old Sandwich Towne."
One of the residents was concerned about an empty house next to hers that could be vandalized and cause damge to her residence and perhaps her pets.
Now how can an elected official or a CAO for that matter turn something down in advance without knowing anything about it. It's easy if you are a Windsor Councillor---you read all about the Bridge Co. plans on BLOGs since you just refuse to meet to be educated about it. (I have heard that the Bridge Co. will make a presentation now at Council on the 11th. I wonder why there was this big switch in attitude. Is it real or just pretend?)
Unfortunately, for the Ward 2 Councillors in particular, there is a big problem. While they are anti-Bridge Co., they are supposedly pro-constituents. And what did the constituents have to say about homes owned by the Bridge Co. at the public session in Sandwich....Well the Councillors will never know. They chose not to attend the meeting where "Other residents questioned the company on its plans for property it has purchased in Old Sandwich Towne."
One of the residents was concerned about an empty house next to hers that could be vandalized and cause damge to her residence and perhaps her pets.
Imagine if that resident's Councillors vote against tearing down the vacant homes and having the Green Corridor Team help design an environment that is suitable to improve the area and instead have them live beside homes that pose a safety risk. Bizarre!
And that is the issue. If the Ward 2 and the other Councillors prevent the Bridge Co. from demolishing the homes then they are the ones contributing to a situation that could cause residents harm.
And that is the issue. If the Ward 2 and the other Councillors prevent the Bridge Co. from demolishing the homes then they are the ones contributing to a situation that could cause residents harm.
I wonder if the Mayor and Council will seek the advice of outside Counsel in this matter. They should for their own protection and peace of mind. They may even need the advice of their own personal lawyers given their potential risks. Laugh if you will....but this can be very serious.
Surely they would NOT give the file to David Estrin for advice since he is being sued by the Bridge Co. No one would dare put David in the position where he could have a potential conflict would they?
It is not an academic point either. Ask the people who were charged as owner of a house that was damaged by fire and people hurt even though someone was charged with "arson and two counts of negligence causing bodily harm."
I would think that the Bridge Co. has the perfect defence: they were prevented by Council from tearing the homes down.
Those people on Council who voted to prevent them from demolishing the homes could now have a legal risk if the Crown could prove "bad faith." As I said, it is not a laughing matter.
It is not an academic point either. Ask the people who were charged as owner of a house that was damaged by fire and people hurt even though someone was charged with "arson and two counts of negligence causing bodily harm."
I would think that the Bridge Co. has the perfect defence: they were prevented by Council from tearing the homes down.
Those people on Council who voted to prevent them from demolishing the homes could now have a legal risk if the Crown could prove "bad faith." As I said, it is not a laughing matter.
Depending what happens Monday night, this could be the start of something very ugly. And Windsor, again is the loser!
The hypocrisy of it all...Item #8 on the Agenda "CQ47-2006, 3465 Wilkinson Lane, Outlaw Biker Clubhouse." Council wants the Federal Government to demolish the Outlaw Biker House in Sandwich since it is an eyesore and nuisance and to ensure public safety.My suggestion to the Bridge Co. if they lose is to take all reasonable steps to protect the homes from damage, perhaps even board them up to make them difficult to enter, and put a big sign on the front lawn for the neighbours to see telling them this house is there because Council voted to prevent demolition. They should also post and give the name and contact information of each person on Council who voted not to demolish the homes. They should tell the residents to call those persons directly if there are problems!
To show you the absurdity of what Council is doing in Sandwich and what the effect could be, the Bridge Co. should apply for a heritage grant or loan, as Mary Ann Cuderman did, since EVERY home in Sandwich will be designated as heritage, and after they fix up a house at taxpayer expense, they should offer it to some motorcycle club. Now that would be a hoot!
To show you the absurdity of what Council is doing in Sandwich and what the effect could be, the Bridge Co. should apply for a heritage grant or loan, as Mary Ann Cuderman did, since EVERY home in Sandwich will be designated as heritage, and after they fix up a house at taxpayer expense, they should offer it to some motorcycle club. Now that would be a hoot!
No comments:
Post a Comment