Flower Wins, Bambi At Risk

It looks like some Councillors are more interested in helping skunks like Flower after the last Council meeting than saving Bambi and friends in Superior Park. But they had better start asking some real questions about the Park.

Is there more at play than just the sale of a Park? There are some significant legal and fairness issues involved that someone has to deal with.

Obviously, that person is the Mayor first. Councillors do have a role under the Procedural By-law as well. Their role is: "To collectively oversee the administrative functions as carried out by appointed officials within delegated authority and the policies adopted by Council and To act as liaison between the citizens they represent and the municipality, to ensure that the intention of the established policies and regulations are applied in a manner that is conducive to the citizens and community as a whole."

In all honesty, can the Mayor and Council say that Administration has carried its function "within delegated authority" and in a way that is "conducive." I do not believe they can after you read what I set out below.

It might be nice as well if Councillors took into account the wishes of the vast majority of residents too when making their decision. They oppose selling the park.

It is getting very rowdy at Superior Park meetings isn't it if you watched the last one on TV news. What's the matter with those people, it's only their homes at risk!

At least Councillor Zuk was there this time and she did not attack anyone opposing the school proposed to be built as racist. Perhaps she realizes that people have a concern about their homes and what they were promised about the Park when they first moved in. If it is a "crappy" park, in her words, then the fault is hers and that of her Ward mate, Councillor Brister. Why didn't they make the effort over the past 3 years to ensure that it was properly looked after. Or was it always expected that the Park would be sold so no one wanted to put money into it?

What do we know so far about Superior Park fiasco:

1. The agenda item that started off this mess where approval was given for Administration to negotiate the deal was moved by Councillor Brister in camera
2. Councillor Budget had to change his position and oppose the sale since Gord Henderson made him the hero of the park, supposedly leading the opposition.
3. When it was brought to Council the first time, the motion was presented to Council as a done deal without notification to neighbours as is required and in the summer when many people would be away on vacation and who therefore would not know about the deal until it was too late.
4. Councillors Valentinis and Jones were blind-sided by it since "they are on the school liaison committee that was created precisely to deal with this type of situation."
5. Councillor Jones said that there are many other places where the School can go.
6. The Report to Council tried to pressure Council into accepting a deal with the School Board immediately [a so-called August "drop dead" date by which the sale HAD to be done was inserted] .
7. After a fuss was raised, Administration wanted to have a "proper and thorough consultation" with residents and wanted a 90 day period but Council considered the matter and gave them 30 days. That time period started on September 5 I believe and the 30 days are long past.
8. Then the infamous meeting that Administration messed up, what kind it was, when notices were sent out, where it was held (out of the area)
9. The race card was played, subsequently, and blown out of proportion. Why I cannot figure out yet unless it was the excuse to make the deal go forward
10. Then the next meeting was scheduled for the October 17, more than 30 days after the Council resolution
11. Since the meeting was outside of the 30 day period, Superior Park supporters argued that the meeting was not proper and Administration was acting without authority. Notwithstanding that she was asked to do so, the City Clerk did not provide a legal opinion from the City Solicitor but ruled that the meeting after the Council deadline was legal. How that can be done is beyond me since Administration must act, as the Procedural By-law says, "within delegated authority" only.
12. There may be a conflict of interest involved since it can be argued that the Clerk should not have participated at all since the Clerk's husband is the person who has responsibility for the project. Her ruling allowing the Clerk's husband to carry on with the meeting. If she had ruled against her husband, the project might now be dead. She also justified her assertion by claiming that a noted and filed letter was an implied acceptance. I frankly cannot believe that statement. Again this matter needs an opinion from the City Solicitor
13. Another Council session is scheduled for the 23rd although it was not posted as an Agenda item on the City's site until after noon on the Friday before the meeting (that means no delegation who sees it posted can appear in front of Council as of right, but must now seek Council consent),
14. That meeting was to have taken place on Ocotber 10 and is again outside of the 30 day time limit.

Now I don't know about you, but this issue is giving me a headache. I heard on the news that the residents will go to the OMB and appeal a decision that sells the park and they should have an easy go of it with the Administrative law flaws in the process so far. Where is justice or the appearance of justice at least. We should run a contest about how many flaws there are. In my opinion, the whole Superior Park matter should be thrown out and started all over again. And this time it should be done according to the Rules.

I read the Mayor's website and it was said that:

1) The Mayor ensures that the laws governing the Municipality are properly executed and obeyed.

2) The Mayor has primary responsibility for seeing that the policies of the Municipality are implemented, and he works closely with Council to ensure that this occurs.

3) As CEO, the Mayor has responsibility for all actions taken on behalf of the municipal corporation. The Mayor oversees the Municipality's administration to ensure that all actions taken by administration are consistent with Council policies.

In other words, the buck stops with Eddie! It is up to him to make some order out of this chaos. Will he support Administration against the residents no matter what they do or will he take charge and tell Administration to do it right. Will he wimp out since he is afraid to confront Administration or will he act as he is obliged to do and stand up for citizens? This will be a test of his worth as a leader!

I assume that he will request that the City Clerk NOT sit beside him as she usually does during an agenda item discussion and NOT give him advice. If he does not do that, then we will know that the citizens will have lost.

Just a few issues more that are strange to me:

1) I thought the deal was to be signed by August 22 or it was "null and void." It is October now so why is this being discussed. I guess it was NOT that urgent after all but a game was being played to force it down Council's throat before residents knew what hit them. Whoever dreamed up that scheme, if that person worked for the City, should be fired for cause! Who made the decision on the City's part to extend the Agreement? I do not remember Council doing it or authorizing it. Why is it in front of Council now?

2) How was the appraisal of the land undertaken? Was it appraised as green space or as residential? (Residential use can include a school) If Residential, then the land is probably worth in the range of up to $5 million. This means we are giving the School Board a bargain at the price quoted in the Administration Report.

3) The School Board only tells us what they "intend" to use the land for. There is NO condition that if that use changes, it reverts back to the City. Why not?

4) There is a strong rumour from one of my unknown City Hall moles that a City Hall official "met with a developer who is trying to rejig the deal with the school board and build 65 homes on the park instead of the school." Some of the park can already be used for homes I believe but not the whole Park. That got me thinking. What if the School Board decides after they buy the park because of "racism" they should not build a School there. It does NOT revert back to the City. What if the Board sells the Park to a developer who wants to build 65 homes. What happens then? Interestingly, if the School Board sells the park to a developer at the price they paid for it, then who makes he profit on the land on the sale of homes? Isn't it the private developer?

So Council needs a way out and so does the School Board as do the residents. What's the Board's $15M worth now after sitting on this for 4 years. And what will it be worth after the OMB appeal is heard in several months or more from now.

We need a King Solomon to find a solution. I think I have it!

I heard another rumour from a mole---a lawyer for a developer in the area sent a letter to Administration with a copy to the Mayor and Councillor Budget (why not to Councillor Zuk also is a mystery) recently as well as to a few others offering his land. His property is very close to Superior Park so should be convenient for the new school. Hmmmm I wonder why that was not included in the Council package as an alternative for Council to consider. Don't you find that odd that Administration would not include that since it was faxed to Mr. Duben and dated before the Agenda item was posted?

The letter states that not only was there enough land for a school but also there was land for a 7-9 acre park in addition, which land was going to be donated by the developer. A park that is badly needed in the area.

Doesn't that solve the problem and make everyone happy since the Board gets a school and the residents keep Superior Park?

It should be interesting to see how this plays out on Monday night. What also will be interesting to see is which of the Ward 1 Councillors can persuade colleagues to support his/her position. Councillor Zuk doesn't care because she is not running again. If Councillor Brister cannot persuade his colleagues, does that mean they won't listen to him in the future too?