Let’s keep kicking this can down the road.


Last night Collingwood town council cost me $10. Berman bet me that amount last week that the site remediation agreement for Admiral Collingwood Place would get deferred for another two weeks. I said that was impossible in an election year, even this council wouldn’t be that stupid. But sure enough as per Scoops “Liveblog: Collingwood Town Council” below, they did exactly that. (I keep forgetting Berman took his crystal ball back). This council (and I mean all of them) continue to flounder around on this issue. I personally think that this should now not be dealt with by this current council and should become an election issue. It seems that the continued kid glove treatment of this developer (there’s only one person they don’t want to upset) and the inability of this current administration to show an ounce of impartiality and leadership on the future of this property, seems a lot more important than the placement of a couple of patio’s ever was, which was the defining issue of the 2010 vote. I thought in the past, and some of you still think that the previous council was dysfunctional, read the following and tell me how “functional” this is:

Now getting to the site remediation agreement for Admiral. Time to strap in…

Lawyer Leo Longo updates, that there has been individual meetings with the landowners, and a joint meeting, on how best to proceed.

The options are to not grant a extension to the site remediation agreement – which ran out on April 30 – grant a one-year extension, or a two-year agreement.

Longo says any action by council to revise the agreement will require consent of other two landowners.

In front of council are two options: do extend, and for how long and for what conditions, or no extension, and how to proceed on that basis.

Councillor Lloyd putting forward the motion, to grant the extension for Admiral Collingwood Place for two years, and for the Strand side, one year.

Other requirements are for $10 million in insurance, and for a letter of credit to be deposited with the town.

Hull says he seconded the motion to put it on the table, but will not be supporting it.

Hull says he’s concerned this is the first time other councillors are being made aware of what is being proposed.

Longo says he met with senior staff and the mayor and deputy-mayor, and motion on the table similar to what he understood was coming forward.

Longo says “this is wording… that can be accommodated” from letter from Strandholt solicitor.

Gardhouse pointing out no one has heard the motion until now, so there is no reason to table it.

Notes we are now six or seven weeks into this, and the two developers don’t agree, and council can’t unilaterally change the agreement.

“The motion is just sitting there, and it’s an idea that was just thrown out there,” says Gardhouse.

Longo says what is being presented in the motion still has to be approved by the other two parties.

Otherwise we are in a situation where the existing agreement can be enforced. “What council is doing is not unilaterally extending the agreement… tell us what your decision is and we’ll try and implement as best we can,” says Longo.

Councillor Edwards says he won’t vote on the motion at this time, but wants more of an explanation. “This is a very involved situation,” he says. “I don’t want to vote on something I don’t fully understand what the implications are.”

He says this council should resolve the situation and not leave it to the next council.

Councillor West said what was agreed to in 2011 was what they thought in the best interest of town. Shouldn’t be “left hanging” and wants to know what he’s voting on as the conditions of the extension.

The motion on the table would ‘bifurcate’ the site remediation agreement, similar to how the site plan agreements were separated in 2011
D-M Lloyd says he believes the motion on the table is very clear.

He supports the motion, and believes important that this council needs to deal with the issue.

Councillor Chadwick asks how long it will take to get the new agreement; motion is a “negotiating platform”.

He asks to defer until the next council meeting in two weeks to give developers a chance to review what is proposed.

Councillor Cunningham notes the “numerous” letters and emails from residents on the issue, and how it was time to do something about the matter.

Cunningham says council “is between a rock and a hard place” as only the third party of a three-party agreement, and council has worked hard to see the project completed.

“People can’t point the finger and say, ‘council, this is all your fault’,” says Cunningham.

“Right now, we’re one in three. We can present all night and if one of the parties say, ‘I don’t like that’, we’re still where we sit today,” says Cunningham.

Other parts of the motion include remediation of the boulevard, and securing the hoarding around the perimeter of the site.

Longo emphasizes can’t unilaterally amend the agreement, but can decide to unilaterally enforce the agreement.

Councillor Lloyd says town has endeavoured to be as impartial as it can be on the agreement.

Town trying to accommodate the requests of the landowners, he says, and the motion addresses concerns raised by one of the two parties, “and it addresses the needs and concerns of the community.”

Councillor West asks for a deferral; deferral passes with Edwards, Hull, Chadwick, West and Gardhouse approving.

Looks like it gets put off for another two weeks.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Let’s keep kicking this can down the road.

  1. Here’s a good analogy of the Admiral Collingwood, Admiral’s Village situation that this dysfunctional, blatantly patronizing Council is probably going to proceed with.

    The Smiths and the Jones own two semi-detached houses in town and they don’t seem to talk to each other as neighbours. Both properties are a property standards mess. The Smiths started to dig a hole for a pool and ran out of money so they put a plywood fence around the property. Meanwhile the Jones have a backyard full of weeds and other assorted crap making it almost as offensive as the Smith property. Neighbours have been complaining for years so the By-Law Enforcement Officer drops by to take a look. The Smiths say they need 2 years to either fill in the hole or sell their house, meanwhile the Jones say they can have their place cleaned up or perhaps sold in 1 year.

    The Smiths have some close personal ties with members on Council so they are given the 2 years they requested to remedy the situation. The Jones agree to start cleaning up their property immediately and will have it done with 1 year. At the end of the year the Jones have worked hard and their property is much improved. On the other side, the Smiths haven’t even begun to fill in the hole for their unfinished pool or otherwise clean up their yard nor have they found a buyer for the property. The second year of the extension passes and the street remains tainted by the lingering mess of the Smith property.

    The outcome (check Steve Berman’s crystal ball) A new Council then in office proceeds to do what the current Council did not have the determination or guts to do despite the community’s outcry for action. Namely, to enforce a remediation agreement signed and agreed to by all three parties to address a situation which by then with be over 5 years after when something should have been done to address this sorry mess.

    • Sigh. My crystal ball is getting more attention than I am 🙂

      That is really good analogy Rick. We heard council talk last night, about “helping” the developers, but neither developers has anything on the go. There doesn’t seem to be any reason, other than blind hope, that anything will change between now, and the time any extension expires.

      At least Scott S. seems to be trying, and the items he asked for in his request were fair, if it were to be granted.

      Steve A, has basically said FU to the town, then left his friends on council to try and explain why this was the right thing to do. For the 4 that want to give him his 2 years, it seemed like a pretty easy decision.

  2. Why are they making it more complicated than it has to be, unless the council has another horse in the race that’s different from the community it is suppose to represent. The developers aren’t doing this for the community, it’s about making money.

  3. My understanding for the last deferral was so that the developers could come back to Council with their opinions on how to proceed, meetings would have been held in those two weeks, and there would have been a decision made last night. It was obvious that most of Council was blindsided by the motion that really wasn’t put together by the Mayor and DM from the staff report. My goodness talk about dancing around an issue. Nobody, please help me out here, there was one very clear decision that could have been made last night – the agreement became null and void as of April 30th and Council could have voted not to give an extension……..period. What is really going on????????

    • Jo-Anne of course that is the case. The agreement is already in place and should have been enforced 30th April. 5 members of this council have a puppet master behind them that is pulling their strings. They are going through the motions right now to give this an appearance of impartiality. The only thing we can do is remember this and throw these bums out in October.

  4. What was so hard to understand about the fact that the elephant in the room is that there is a signed contract that is enforceable? Put the corner back the way it was minus the Admiral Collingwood School which is sad.

    • Hey Cheryl glad your back, I thought I might have scared you away with my feature on you last week. I completely agree with you. But the defining issue here is no one wants to upset Steve Assaff. At least Rick Lloyd is consistent he doesn’t give a shit what the public thinks just give his buddy what ever he wnts.

      • The question that hasn’t been asked is this. Of the Furious 5, Rick Lloyd, Kevin Lloyd, Sandy Cunningham & Sandra Cooper, voted to give Steve what he wanted. Ian Chadwick voted to defer.

        Why? Is he trying to separate himself from the group? Is there some in-fighting? Is this simply a sweeps week attempt at a ratings boost?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s