WE NEED LEGAL HELP...CITY OF WOODSTOCK OFFERS SERVICES OF CAO AND MAYOR TO PUSH FOR CONSERVATION AREA DEVELOPEMENT(FOR A PRIVATE DEVELOPER AND HIS PRIVATE GOLF COURSE)
One must admire the tenacity that our mayor appears to have when it comes to pushing for the developement of our local conservation areas. He's a hardworking and a strong ethics man. The man fronts one of the most transparent and politically astute organizations on the planet. Okay..just joking!
It certainly appears that the man is out there hardworking for a small portion of Woodstocks' residents and its' developers. I guess that alone should justify the fat pay raises the man has gained and enjoyed at our public expense while governing for the developers and working against a large portion of the community.(yes...the people that pay him are getting a screwing at his hands and it appears as though both of his terms have been anti-people...but all pro-developer.)
This weeks news brought stories of our mayor and his (note the word his) CAO, meeting once more in private(oh, that's not a backroom meeting is it...nah...we must all be stupid as shit to believe that one!) with the board of the UTRCA(after all of the other proponents were told that discussions were now concluded.)to discuss the ongoing administration dilemna(a political dilemna of how they can push the idea for a golf course, without looking like stooges to the silly uneducated masses who elected them or pay their wages.)of the ridiculous idea for the Sally creek golf course extension over what is now a conservation area, and home to thousands of small birds and animals.(and as well, some very large deer)
Although the Chairperson of the UTRCA claimed that the mayor didn't have a gun to his head, I'm sure that we'll never know because there were no minutes kept of the impromptu meeting to "clear" the air.(you'd need a shovel to clear the air...it's manure folks that's plugging your esteemed noses.)
I for one believe that his assertion that although no guns were present..that the "threat" imposed would have been having to meet these people to begin with!(and doesn't it seem odd that the Chair would use the term...gun to his head???)
Ahem, so let's clear the air.
Apparently the mayor and his CAO(Paul Bryan-Pulham) spent some time eschewing the benefits of the golf course to the UTRCA and how this fits in with some old 1981(older than a large portion of the community) agreement that the city claims it had with the UTRCA that permitted for the area to be developed for recreation. He says that this golf course plan fits perfectly with Oxfords' official plan.(even though it goes against the Oxford Natural Heritage Study) He says the area is deserving of a golf course...even though national trends show golf to be a subsiding interest for recreational choices.(and even though there are nearly a dozen golf courses within minutes of Woodstock.)
Yes, the mayor and CAO say that because they've found some ancient old rag with some ancient old words that this means we need to do this. If they intend on dredging up some wrinkly old paper...than perhaps they should be looking at them all...I wonder if they've looked at the original donation document from old man Burgess???????
Ahem, so let's clear the air.
Apparently the mayor and his CAO(Paul Bryan-Pulham) spent some time eschewing the benefits of the golf course to the UTRCA and how this fits in with some old 1981(older than a large portion of the community) agreement that the city claims it had with the UTRCA that permitted for the area to be developed for recreation. He says that this golf course plan fits perfectly with Oxfords' official plan.(even though it goes against the Oxford Natural Heritage Study) He says the area is deserving of a golf course...even though national trends show golf to be a subsiding interest for recreational choices.(and even though there are nearly a dozen golf courses within minutes of Woodstock.)
Yes, the mayor and CAO say that because they've found some ancient old rag with some ancient old words that this means we need to do this. If they intend on dredging up some wrinkly old paper...than perhaps they should be looking at them all...I wonder if they've looked at the original donation document from old man Burgess???????
I doubt he'd be impressed with what has gone on here...and I doubt that this plan fits into the scope of his intent when he donated the land.
These two people...one elected and one not, think that one of the most pressing issues in the community is the building of this silly golf course extension...more than solving major issues like the faltering OCPS, the high taxation rate of property and the collapsing manufacturing economy on which we rely substantially. Although we have many important things to be done here, we are wasting tax resources on this issue...in the promotion of a private for profit development that will not have any major benefit to the community in the long term plan of things.
Greenspace and conservation lands are a requirement of any community. The sustainability factor is a requirement that cannot be ignored. Removing the land from the public trust is not good community stewardship and does not represent the values of the community in any way. More people stood up for the land and the idea of conserving it than stood up for the creation of a golf course. In fact, only a handful of people(mostly the owners/planners and employees..and one golf course community home owner..an ex Toronto cop who was well out of his jurisdiction when he stated that the park was full of garbage everywhere...an absolute and tragic lie) turned out for the golf course...and the majority of them were paid to do so or had a vested financial interest in being there...like being a property owner who might be subject to depreciating home values if the extension is not approved.(paid planners/consultants...and everyone knows you can pay a consultant to say anything you want...in fact, the same consultant would make a report stating the golf course is bad for the area if we were to present him with a cheque...and then he'd make one for the developer saying it's good!..'cuz he's already gotten a cheque)
Consultants and lobbyists should be banned period....paid for their words...their words are useless and biased...basically corrupt. Whatever these people say is suspect in all manners. They use newspeak, Orwellian in nature. They fearmonger..."if you don't do it now...someone else will build houses on it....golf courses are "holding" patterns"...preservation systems for future generations". All hail the paid for words of wisdom! (All the while the cacophony of lies drowns out the sensibilities of some elected folks...Ross, Pat, Sandy. Connie has no idea what she's doing there and just wonders when the crackers are served up....with those little triangular funeral sandwiches ya know! Nothing better than a free meal! Helps to keep the retirement expenses down especially if she can stash a few in her pockets on the way out!)
The mayor makes no secret that he very strongly believes in the idea that the park is more deserving of a bulldozer than it is in being preserved for the benefit of the public.(he's pushing the private operated/public pays option ). The mayor took the CAO with him...and now we should wonder if either of these people were being paid to do this...even though the thing is under dispute? Is not kind of devious for the mayor to meet with these people while not telling the balance of council about this meeting? Should he have taken the CAO along as well, and what is the cost of the man attending this meeting and who will pay the bill for that? Us?
Should we pay these two people for having gone to the UTRCA without letting the public know(via their elected representatives)that these were their plans? Should we be held financially reponsible as taxpayers for the fight this private developer has on his hands at the UTRCA level? Should our mayor and CAO have attended this meeting on the citys' dime? No, and personally, I would categorize this as an inapproporiate use of city funds...but what else is new. Our tax dollars have been used throughout this entire thing in support of the developer. Thousands of unaccounted for dollars in fact have been spent on studies, consultants, and the wages of our city employees to promote the gold course...just to prove it "fits" into the spectrum of the local plan. And according to those who protested this action...it does not fit into the plan at all by any means...no matter how the mayor likes to make it all sound. All cozy like and crap you know.
It has become obviously apparent that this mayor would sell swampland and snake oil to the intellectually blind to make this thing happen. The man would use tax resources to promote this private raping of our conservation area..and that ain't right...no matter how he likes to cut his morning cheese.
Yes...in a world of blind folks...this two mouthed man is soothsayer to some...but not to the majority of us.
I am of the mind that he should be on the payroll of this golf course operator. He's invested nearly as much time badmouthing the community and the people who are against the golf course as the developer has, and for that he deserves a paycheque...he's been a good hand for the golf course, and is deserving of his just rewards now. We should demand that he be paid from them...not from us...'cuz he sure isn't working for us now is he?
Sometimes I think Mr Harding must have a secret. It must be a massive secret...so large in fact that it is beyond our understanding...beyond the mere mortal capabilities of the average Woodstonian. Most of us are obviously too silly to comprehend the ecobenefits of the golf course. Most of us just don't understand it, so for that reason alone, it should be kept to the mayors' chest as tight as possible. He is the keeper of all official secrets...and he is the generator of many of them as well. It is his perogative as dear leader that he should do this. This is his time in office...this is his council...and besides that...if they don't follow his direction...there were his threats of sanctions against his elected peers that he suggested during his campaign.(a speech made at Goff hall where he said he would basically punish anyone who stood up or went against him by withholding their pay from them....docking their pay for doing their elected jobs!)
(Hmmm, I wonder if it was a financial "gun to the head" that the UTRCA was talking about?) Perhaps there was a promise to give a UTRCA budget increase a rough ride or something...afterall, no minutes were kept of the impromptu meeting between these folks so I guess we'll just have to assume to worse because no one wants to discuss the details. Thank goodness for the transparency we're seeing here. Sure is refreshing isn't it Mr Hogg?
The real burning issue now should be the concern over the use of city financed resources(the CAO) to forward this private golf course plan. And is there any accounting of the monies that have been spent by the city to push this developement so far to date through all of its' associated departments?
We should worry about this use of tax dollars for private interests and special interest groups like this one.
These two people...one elected and one not, think that one of the most pressing issues in the community is the building of this silly golf course extension...more than solving major issues like the faltering OCPS, the high taxation rate of property and the collapsing manufacturing economy on which we rely substantially. Although we have many important things to be done here, we are wasting tax resources on this issue...in the promotion of a private for profit development that will not have any major benefit to the community in the long term plan of things.
Greenspace and conservation lands are a requirement of any community. The sustainability factor is a requirement that cannot be ignored. Removing the land from the public trust is not good community stewardship and does not represent the values of the community in any way. More people stood up for the land and the idea of conserving it than stood up for the creation of a golf course. In fact, only a handful of people(mostly the owners/planners and employees..and one golf course community home owner..an ex Toronto cop who was well out of his jurisdiction when he stated that the park was full of garbage everywhere...an absolute and tragic lie) turned out for the golf course...and the majority of them were paid to do so or had a vested financial interest in being there...like being a property owner who might be subject to depreciating home values if the extension is not approved.(paid planners/consultants...and everyone knows you can pay a consultant to say anything you want...in fact, the same consultant would make a report stating the golf course is bad for the area if we were to present him with a cheque...and then he'd make one for the developer saying it's good!..'cuz he's already gotten a cheque)
Consultants and lobbyists should be banned period....paid for their words...their words are useless and biased...basically corrupt. Whatever these people say is suspect in all manners. They use newspeak, Orwellian in nature. They fearmonger..."if you don't do it now...someone else will build houses on it....golf courses are "holding" patterns"...preservation systems for future generations". All hail the paid for words of wisdom! (All the while the cacophony of lies drowns out the sensibilities of some elected folks...Ross, Pat, Sandy. Connie has no idea what she's doing there and just wonders when the crackers are served up....with those little triangular funeral sandwiches ya know! Nothing better than a free meal! Helps to keep the retirement expenses down especially if she can stash a few in her pockets on the way out!)
The mayor makes no secret that he very strongly believes in the idea that the park is more deserving of a bulldozer than it is in being preserved for the benefit of the public.(he's pushing the private operated/public pays option ). The mayor took the CAO with him...and now we should wonder if either of these people were being paid to do this...even though the thing is under dispute? Is not kind of devious for the mayor to meet with these people while not telling the balance of council about this meeting? Should he have taken the CAO along as well, and what is the cost of the man attending this meeting and who will pay the bill for that? Us?
Should we pay these two people for having gone to the UTRCA without letting the public know(via their elected representatives)that these were their plans? Should we be held financially reponsible as taxpayers for the fight this private developer has on his hands at the UTRCA level? Should our mayor and CAO have attended this meeting on the citys' dime? No, and personally, I would categorize this as an inapproporiate use of city funds...but what else is new. Our tax dollars have been used throughout this entire thing in support of the developer. Thousands of unaccounted for dollars in fact have been spent on studies, consultants, and the wages of our city employees to promote the gold course...just to prove it "fits" into the spectrum of the local plan. And according to those who protested this action...it does not fit into the plan at all by any means...no matter how the mayor likes to make it all sound. All cozy like and crap you know.
It has become obviously apparent that this mayor would sell swampland and snake oil to the intellectually blind to make this thing happen. The man would use tax resources to promote this private raping of our conservation area..and that ain't right...no matter how he likes to cut his morning cheese.
Yes...in a world of blind folks...this two mouthed man is soothsayer to some...but not to the majority of us.
I am of the mind that he should be on the payroll of this golf course operator. He's invested nearly as much time badmouthing the community and the people who are against the golf course as the developer has, and for that he deserves a paycheque...he's been a good hand for the golf course, and is deserving of his just rewards now. We should demand that he be paid from them...not from us...'cuz he sure isn't working for us now is he?
Sometimes I think Mr Harding must have a secret. It must be a massive secret...so large in fact that it is beyond our understanding...beyond the mere mortal capabilities of the average Woodstonian. Most of us are obviously too silly to comprehend the ecobenefits of the golf course. Most of us just don't understand it, so for that reason alone, it should be kept to the mayors' chest as tight as possible. He is the keeper of all official secrets...and he is the generator of many of them as well. It is his perogative as dear leader that he should do this. This is his time in office...this is his council...and besides that...if they don't follow his direction...there were his threats of sanctions against his elected peers that he suggested during his campaign.(a speech made at Goff hall where he said he would basically punish anyone who stood up or went against him by withholding their pay from them....docking their pay for doing their elected jobs!)
(Hmmm, I wonder if it was a financial "gun to the head" that the UTRCA was talking about?) Perhaps there was a promise to give a UTRCA budget increase a rough ride or something...afterall, no minutes were kept of the impromptu meeting between these folks so I guess we'll just have to assume to worse because no one wants to discuss the details. Thank goodness for the transparency we're seeing here. Sure is refreshing isn't it Mr Hogg?
The real burning issue now should be the concern over the use of city financed resources(the CAO) to forward this private golf course plan. And is there any accounting of the monies that have been spent by the city to push this developement so far to date through all of its' associated departments?
We should worry about this use of tax dollars for private interests and special interest groups like this one.
