Repeal The Interim Control By-law Quickly

Some small-minded people have said recently that I and a number of Councillors do not get along because of my harsh criticism of them. It is said that my tough BLOGs have created an animosity. It was suggested that I should "lighten up" on them.

How ridiculous.

The Councillors know exactly what I am doing. I am commenting on matters of interest to Windsorites. I am expressing MY opinion. One Councillor, who some mistakenly think is my biggest foe, chuckles when he discusses our different opinion on the border file as an example. He understands that we differ on this issue but as he says, we can sit down afterwards and have a beer together because we are both doing what we have to do. It is "politics" not personal.

It's just like two lawyers acting on behalf of their clients in court or hockey players trying to score a goal for their team or any situation where two people have opposing views. One takes one side and the other takes the other side. There is no reason for the one with a different perspective to get upset and take personal offence.

So let me try and offer some advice to Councillors to show I am trying to be helpful.

Here's a nice law school type question:

1. What is the personal liability of a Councillor who votes in favour of a By-law that the Councillor knows is illegal ie outside of the scope of Council to pass or is passed illegally?


2. What is the personal liaiblity of a Councillor who does not know and passes it in good faith?


3. What is the personal liability of a Councillor who does not know but then subsequently finds out that it is illegal and does nothing about it?

You may wonder why I am asking these questions but here is my dilemma. I happened to be looking at the liability sections of the Municipal Act and saw this one:

• Sec 448 (1) No proceeding for damages or otherwise shall be commenced against a member of council or an officer, employee or agent of a municipality or a person acting under the instructions of the officer, employee or agent for any act done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of a duty or authority under this Act or a by-law passed under it or for any alleged neglect or default in the performance in good faith of the duty or authority.

I read the language of the Interim Control By-law and its justification. It was passed supposedly to allow "the municipality to complete and implement a Community Improvement Plan" for Olde Sandwich Towne. I wondered if other CIPs had resulted in this type of a By-law being passed, say like in the urban village area, but I did not have time to research it. Of course I wrote a skeptical BLOG about it but that is just me.

Then I remembered what the Mayor and Councillor Jones said was the reason for their action:

• "Mayor Eddie Francis and Ward 2 Coun. Ron Jones said the interim control bylaw was passed to maintain historically significant structures -- and there are plenty of them in the area -- while the community improvement plan is developed.
  
  Jones said a committee spent the last 18 months developing recommendations for the Sandwich area. He said some properties are 200 years old and the area could be the site of underground tunnels used by slaves escaping the U.S."

You know, dear reader, that did not sound like the reason given in the Administration Report. It sounded "heritage-like." Then I thought I remembered that there was a recent meeting and I found it on the City's website:

• "Heritage Conservation in Sandwich
• The Sandwich Heritage Conservation District Study is underway, the purpose of which is to determine whether all or part of the Sandwich Neighbourhood should be designated as a heritage conservation district. Your input is welcomed at a public information meeting. Thursday, January 25, 2007."

I was shocked...that was the day before the Interim Control By-law was put on the agenda in the last minute. Something bizarre was happening. There already was something going on about "heritage" in Sandwich. I thought it was a rather long and involved process including the hiring of an outside consultant. I started reading the Ontario Heritage Act but got a headache reading the sections on "HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS" since it seemed so complicated and time-consuming.

But then I got a cold shiver down my spine for my Councillor-friends. Weren't the Mayor and Councillor Jones talking about "heritage" when they talked about maintaining historically significant structures when they gave a reason for the Interim Control By-law. Shouldn't they have been acting under the Ontario Heritage Act? If so, were they acting before the Statute had been complied with? Wasn't the By-law therefore illegal? How could it be justified when the heritage study had just started. I wondered if the first By-law would expire around the time when a heritage one would come into play to tie up Sandwich forever.

Oh my I thought, this could be serious. I knew Dan Stamper said in the Star "Bridge lawsuit 'last resort'" but what if it reached that point. I quickly looked back at my questions. I did not have time to do legal research on the issues but I was sure that George Wilkki would.

I was afraid for my Councillor friends that if what was done was wrong and they now knew it and did nothing, they would be at risk.

Oh my goodness, I hope someone moves quickly a Motion of Reconsideration if George tells them I am right!