Thanks For The Restitution Mr Flaherty

CANADAS' FINANCE MINISTER...RETURNS WHAT WAS OURS

I find it puzzling to say the least, that everyone is so happy about our finance minister handing us back...what was ours to begin with.

After years and years of excruciating tax burdens, Jim Flaherty has decided that he will give us a few pennies back, here and there. We will see the GST rolled back to 5%(a stunned move by any measure), and personal income taxes will drop back to the pre-conservative times when Paul Martin lowered personal rates to 15%. Small business taxes will drop to 11% of net income.

So, what effect will this have on social programs and the long term health of our federal government? Will the government be fiscally able to cut all of these taxes while maintaining services? And what about all of those extra civil servants that have been hired since Harper took over the offie of the PMO? I remember well when Harper was in opposition(a place better designed for him), and recall very easily the many tirades against big and bloated government and its' civil service,the arguments against gross taxation and voila...he gets elected, grows fat(see his chin lately??) and then forgets everything he stood for while in opposition.

Anyone who has studied economics understands that this is not the way to encourage an economy, and certainly is not the way to cut taxes.

Those extra dollars could have been put to good use, but weren't. This government could have done big things with that money, but didn't.

Instead, we have a government of status quo, delivered by a PM who thrives on being mediocre.

Yeah, the old saying goes...look busy and no one will notice you sitting around.

Come To Woodstock...You Can Buy Anything Here

WOODSTOCK IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS...THE ENTIRE DAMNED TOWN IS FOR SALE!

Who needs a park, when we could all be earning a dollar a round for golf?

This may not be so bad, but who wants to trust a private golf course operator to show us the books and actually turn over the suggested $1.00 per round of golf?

How will the city of Woodstock ever gain access to this private developers operations and books?

Will Woodstock be forced into some wierd partnership with the course operator?

And if so, how will we be protected from liabilities that may arise from the course operators actions?
The city of Woodstock should have nothing to do with private enterprise beyond creating an environment conducive to operating a business in the community.

The city should not be involved in anything private.

And after all of the trouble with the private company Info Energy and the failure of that privately owned, publicly owned, but private when the shit hit the fan(which means that these people are actually responsible under the Ontario Corporations Act which may offer some type of relief to us shortly) you would think the city people would rethink their position.

No, Woodstock should not be involved in a private developers plans.

The city should not be in the business of leasing out lands for private profit, with no real plan for a financial return beyond the possibilityy of receiving the odd dollar or so...if the golf course turns over the books.(do you think they'll be honest and show us the real books?)

Council Will Decide On Burgess Park...Nov 1, 2007

WOODSTOCK CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE THE FATE OF CONSERVATION AREAS

November 1st Woodstock City council will decide to either endorse a golf course(on publicly owned park/conservation land)or will decide to just leave it as is.(with some developement of a trail system)

Then the process will move into the hands of the Upper Thames Board who will decide to either maintain or rid themselves of this "surplus" land. From some of the comments we have heard from members of the Upper Thames management, this land may remain.

Is it usual for a city to want to destroy there conservation lands?

Although there is lots of discussion about "corn fields" not being conservation land, they are still a part of this park, are owned by the public trust, and really, when it boils down to it, the land could be used for a community garden, or for re-naturalization purposes.

My real concern(although the environment is of massive concern)is the process which was used to bring this to council, and the backwards methods of the developers to grab the land first(without environmental/archaeological assesments)bulldoze and then ask for permits.

Until you actually walk the trails of Burgess Park, you will never know how much damage has been done.

The former artesian well that was flowing onto and through this park property, now is capped.

The creek has had its banks pushed in, and thousands upon thousands of trees were ripped down to clear way for greens and fairways. The wildlife has been displaced,(thats okay..they were in the way anyways)and the entire area looks and feels like a nuclear winter.

The mass majority of work performed was performed without permits, without the benefit of a conservation officer on hand, and as the local tree lady puts it, without the knowledge of the tree bylaw officer.(county)

One thing about dragging out the process is this.

I being a businessman understand...time,money and the art of profitibality.

And we can bet..the longer we can drag this out, the less money the developer will have to develope. And if we can push this thing 6 months further into the future, chances are he will have a much more difficult time finding financing for his plans.

So, after council makes their decision...the next level of decision will fall into the Upper Thames board.

I will suggest that we begin the process of dealing with the Upper Thames, and appealing to their board and managers.

After all, the decision will be theirs ultmately, and whatever council has to say really means nothing as Upper Thames can tell them to stick it.

So, lets keep on fighting this thing, not here, but at Upper Thames.

We'll make our final submission to council and will ask for a complete 3 season study of the lands in question with a goal of seeing this thing stopped either through council or upper thames...or through the bankruptcy of the developer.

We've Been Ripped Off : The Integrity Commissioner Part One

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE ANYTHING FOR THIS CITY

This week I will file an access to information with the City of Woodstock in order to discover who made the decision to stifle the Integrity Commissioner.

Read this...straight from the city website. The thing is rife with spelling errors...

_________________________________

Complain Protocol for a City Integrity Commissioner
All complaints must be addressed in accordance with the below captioned procedure within six
months of the alleged violation or no action will be taken on the complaint.

__________________________________________
Informal Complaint Procedure:
Individual (for example, City employees, members of public or members of Council) or
organizations who have identified or witnessed behavior or an activity by a member of Council
that they believe is in contravention of the Code of Conduct for members of Council (the Code
of Conduct) may wish to address the prohibited behavior or activity themselves as follows.
1. Advise the member of Council that the behavior or activity contravenes the Code of
Conduct
2. Encourage the member of Council o stop the prohibited behavior or activity
3. Keep a written record of the incidents including dates, times, locations, other persons
present, and any other relevant information.
4. If applicable, confirm to the member of Council you satisfaction with the response of the
member of council; or if applicable advise the member of Council of your dissatisfaction
with the response; and
5. Consider the need to pursue the matter in accordance with the formal complaint
procedure outlined in Part B or in accordance with an applicable judicial or quasi-judicial
process.
Individuals and organizations are encouraged to initially pursue the informal complaint
procedure as a means of stopping an remedying a behavior/activity that is inconsistent with the
Code of Conduct. However, it is not a precondition or prerequisite that they pursue the informal
complain t procedure prior to pursuing the formal complaint procedure.
Formal Complaint Procedure: Integrity Commissioner
Individual (for example, City employees, members of public or members of Council) or
organizations who have identified or witnessed behavior or an activity by a member of Council
that they believe is in contravention of the Code of Conduct for members of Council (the Code
of Conduct) who wish to address the behavior or activity through the Integrity commissioner
may proceed as follows.
Complaint
1. The request shall be in writing and shall set out the grounds for the belief of an alleged
contravention.
2. All complaints shall be signed by an identifiable individual (which includes the
authorized signing officer of an organization.)
3. A complaint shall set out the grounds for the belief and the contravention alleged and
include a supporting affidavit that sets out the evidence in the support of the complaint.
For example, facts should include the name of the alleged violator, the provision allegedly
contrived, facts constituting the alleged contravention, the names and contact information of
witnesses, and contact information respecting the complainant during normal business hours.
4. The City Clerk or Deputy Clerk shall accept the complaint with any supporting evidence;
5. The complaint shall be referred immediately to the Integrity Commissioner for initial
classification.
6. The Integrity Commissioner shall review the complaint to determine if the matter is, on
its face, a complaint with respect to non-compliance with the Code of Conduct or other
policies or by-laws with regards to ethics, and not covered by other legislation or other
Council policies.
Handling of Complaint by Commissioner
7. If the complaint does not include a supporting affidavit, the Integrity Commissioner may
defer the classification until an affidavit is received.
8. If the complaint, including any supporting affidavit, is not, on its face, a complaint with
respect to non-compliance with the Code of Conduct or the complaint is covered by other
legislation or complaint procedure under another Council policy, the Integrity
Commissioner shall advise the complainant in writing as follows;
a) If the complaint on its face is an allegation of a criminal nature consistent with the
Criminal Code of Canada, the complainant shall be advised that if the complainant
wishes to pursue any such allegation, the complainant must pursue it with the Oxford
Community Police Service;
b) If the complaint on its face is with respect to non-compliance with the Municipal
Conflict of Interest Act, the complainant shall be advised to review the matter with
the complainant’s own legal counsel;
c) If the complaint on its face is with respect to non-compliance with the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the complainant shall be
advised that the matter must be referred to the City Clerk/for Access and Privacy
review.
d) If the complaint on its face is with respect to non-compliance with a non ethics
related Council policy with a separate complaint procedure, the complainant shall be
advised that the matter will be processed under that procedure and
e) In other cases, the complainant shall be advised that the matter, or part of the matter,
is not within the jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner to process with any
additional reasons and referrals as the Integrity Commissioner considers appropriate.
Reports
9. The Integrity Commissioner shall report annually to Council on complaints not within the
jurisdiction of the Integrity Commissioner, but shall not disclose information that could
identify a person concerned.
Investigation
10. If a complaint has been classified as being within the Integrity Commissioner’s
jurisdiction, the Commissioner shall investigate and may attempt to settle the complaint.
11. The Integrity Commissioner will proceed as follows:
a) Serve the complaint and supporting material on the member whose conduct is in
question with a request that a written response to the allegation be filed within ten
days; and
b) Serve a copy of the response provided on the complainant with a request to advise
the Integrity Commissioner within ten days if the complainant is not satisfied with
the respond
12. If necessary, after reviewing the written materials, the Integrity Commissioner may speak
to anyone relevant to the complaint, examine any other documents relevant to the
complaint and may enter any City work location relevant to the complaint for the purpose
of investigation and settlement.
13. The Integrity Commissioner may make interim reports to Council as required to address
any instances of interference, obstruction or retaliation encountered during the
investigation.
Final Report
14. The Integrity Commissioner shall submit a final report on the complaint to Council, no
later than 90 days after the filing of the complaint with the City Clerk, outlining the
findings, the terms of any settlement, or recommended corrective action. This clause is
not applicable in the event that the Commissioner determines the complaint is classified
under Clause 8 or the complaint is deemed to be vexatious or frivolous.
Lawful recommendations
Any recommended corrective action must be permitted in law and shall be designed to
ensure that the inappropriate behavior or activity does not continue.
Refusal to conduct inquiry
15. If the Integrity Commissioner is of the opinion that the referral of a matter to him or her
is frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith, or that there are no grounds or
insufficient grounds for an inquiry, the Integrity Commissioner shall not conduct an
inquiry and shall state the reasons for not doing so to the complainant.
Member not blameworthy
1. If the Integrity Commissioner determines that there has been no contravention of the
Code of Conduct or that a contravention occurred although the member took all
reasonable measures to prevent it, or that a contravention occurred that was trivial or
committed through inadvertence or an error of judgment made in good faith, the
Integrity Commissioner shall so state in the report and shall recommend that no
penalty be imposed.
2. The Integrity Commissioner shall give a copy of the report to the complainant and the
member whose conduct is concerned.
3. The Integrity Commission shall not be required to make a report to Council on such
complaints, but shall make reference to the number of refusal to conduct inquiry
complaints in the annual report to Council.
Duty of Council
16. Council shall consider and respond to the report within 30 days after the day the report is
laid before it.

__________________________________--

According to the city of Woodstock website, the newly hired integrity commissioner will not be able to investigate complaints arising from matters that are more than 6 months old.

So, where does this leave the citizens of Woodstock?

Who made the decision to include that clause in the hiring of this guy? This was nothing that was brought up in council at any point.

Was it the hiring committee? Fact is, one of the proponents of the Info Energy scam sat on the hiring committee, and now we have a hobbled integrity commissioner.

What was the reason for the hobbling?

Was this elected head truly afraid of what this guy would find out?

Obviously, or he would not have taken the time to ensure that we wasted a pile of money hiring someone who does not have the mandate to investigate anything.

Perhaps it is time for the citizens of Woodstock to sue this person for the losses while they were at the helm of the company. Perhaps taking all of the board to court in order to recover those dollars would be a good idea. Afterall, this person refused to address the losses while something could have been done,and he as well permitted the paying out of bonuses while the company was failing, and as well refused to perform his duties under the Ontario Corporations Act which outline his responsiblities to the shareholders(us)in much detail. This person while at the head of the board, and as head of council shares as much blame for the failure of this company as the companies management does.

Nothing short of a criminal forensic investigation will suffice at this point.

The integrity commissioner is a scam used to cover up another scam.

If you aren't mad...you ought to be. We've just been screwed.

Anyone want to join a suit against this guy?

This might be the only way we will ever clear this up.

But then again...will our city have to pay this guys legal bills?

No doubt..we have been screwed and will continue to be screwed.

You can't force integrity from someone who has no understanding of what that is.

GAP Clothing Stores Are Using Children To Manufacture Their Clothes

GAP CLOTHING SHOPS USE CHILD LABOUR

According to a UK Observer report, GAP stores are making their christmas apparel line with the help of children.

New Delhi India is home to many millions of people, and is one of the oldest cultures on earth but on the sinister side it is home to a thriving child labour industry

Each morning thousands of children are sent off to work without food, clean clothes and access to education in order to make clothese for the Candian and US markets. Many times those children are making clothes for children while wearing dirty rags themselves. Some children have been "traded" for cash and are force to work the debt off for their parents, and are threatened by being told they will not be permitted to go home or see their families until the debt is oaid.

In the Guardian story they make mention of one child who was sold into bonded labour by his father, and was driven 30 hours from his ancestral home with only a worn blanket, comb and a penknife as his sole possesions.

These paragraphs are from the Observer report.....

_________________

''I was bought from my parents' village in [the northern state of] Bihar and taken to New Delhi by train,' he says. 'The men came looking for us in July. They had loudspeakers in the back of a car and told my parents that, if they sent me to work in the city, they won't have to work in the farms. My father was paid a fee for me and I was brought down with 40 other children. The journey took 30 hours and we weren't fed. I've been told I have to work off the fee the owner paid for me so I can go home, but I am working for free. I am a shaagird [a pupil]. The supervisor has told me because I am learning I don't get paid. It has been like this for four months.''

The derelict industrial unit in which Amitosh and half a dozen other children are working is smeared in filth, the corridors flowing with excrement from a flooded toilet.
Behind the youngsters huge piles of garments labelled Gap - complete with serial numbers for a new line that Gap concedes it has ordered for sale later in the year - lie completed in polythene sacks, with official packaging labels, all for export to Europe and Noth America in time for Christmas.

____________________________

GAP industries claims that no child labour has been used since 1990 when sweat shops in Cambodia were discovered manufacturing GAP clothing lines that were marked as being manufactured in the USA. Since 1990 numerous reports have surfaced that this company uses child labour.

The problem with this business is that in a drive for higher profits, these retailers have outsourced their work to countries with limited or no child labour laws. India has a child labour pool of approximately 55 million children between the ages of 5 and 14. India has now become the number one outsource location for North America mega retailers.

The majority of GAP industries clothes are made out of the North American spectrum. Their contribution to the North American economy is limited, and this company has made massive profits by using small children to stitch their wares.

A boycott of GAP industries in North America wouldn't be a bad idea.

This year, I won't be shopping at the GAP for anything for my family.

And next year... I will not shop at the GAP.

And by the way...do you wonder where all the North American jobs have gone?

CONServatives new program for reducing prison populations under fire.

WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED AT KITCHENERS' FEDERAL WOMENS' PRISON?

Originally billed as an inmate suicide, prison guards now face charges(whatever that means) in the death of female prisoner.

Two male guards are now facing charges in the death of a 19 year old female inmate who was recently transferred from a young offender program to complete her sentence.

originally the coroner had deemed it to be a suicide, but "bits and pieces" of evidence kept turning up. Hmmm, bits and pieces eh?

So, is this the new crime crackdown we've been anticpating since Harper and Day announced their "crime" crackdown?

And after reading the article, do you wonder why there is a negligible amount of information in the story? And do you wonder, are these guards still on the federal payroll?

Let's Develope Vansittart Park...Across From The Splashpad

INSTEAD OF KILLING A CONSERVATION AREA...BUILD SOME HOUSES IN THAT VACANT PARK ON VAN AVE

Just thinking...

Why doesn't Al Hargreaves buy up that useless park on Van Ave(you know the one...across from the kiddie splash pad) and build some high density housing there? There'd be much less work for him, he'd have no major trees to rip out, and the only thing he'd be displacing is...a view of Van Ave.?

Or perhaps a golf course? That would fit in perfectly there.

Heck, as long as we're in the business of dismantling green space(who wants that pesky long grass and all those unmanicured trees anyways?)why not develope Southside Park into a monument to stupidity by building another casino? Or perhaps, a Chucky Cheese?

I think I've seen it all here.

This entire issue never would have made it to council for a decision if we hadn't bitched and complained about the ruination of a conservation area. Council had no intention on making this back room deal a public decision. Purposely, the people of Woodstock were left out of the picture. Someone...tried to slide this through.

That is why I beleive that we need to keep the preseure up, no matter what.

If a decision is made this week, then we will have an option at the OMB for an appeal.

A majority of community members have signed petitions asking for no deal to be made that would affect the future of the Burgess Park area. The majority of this community believe that of all things that are important, the environment is at the top of the list. The community does not believe a golf course will lead to better water standards, better conservation standards, and better public(no cost)access.

The community(thousands upon thousands) have asked council to back down, and walk away from making this deal.

We are asking council to reiterate its' support to the community whom they were elected by.

The only honest answer to this is to refuse to say yes to a golf course and a road and to support the community in its' efforts to make Woodstock a better place to be.

It's the right thing to do.

jim bender, woodstock

What Happened To The Official Opposition?

Do Canadians wish for another year of uncertainty?
Sometimes I wonder just what the heck is going through the mind of the party leaders, Dion, Layton and Harper.(Never mind Duceppe, he's quickly become another political footnote.)
After all of the public bemoaning of the Conservative agenda, the liberal party walked away from its' responsibilties as the official opposition in this minority government when it decided that abstaining from a vote in parliament on a well flawed throne speech would afford it some time to regroup..at the expense of average Canadians. Instead of sticking to its' guns, it laid down and died leaving us to fend for ourselves.Some defender of the public they turned out to be. Looks like they are blind defenders of self preservation.
The Harper attack on the environment through its' failure to outline even an obligatory agenda for reducing pollution and no one to oppose that bad position is a terrible choice for the liberals to have abstained from voting on in the house. Just who on earth is directing their ship?
The hazy references in the throne speech to tax reductions both personal and VAT have Canadians wondering what the minority Harper governments' real intent on taxation is. The official opposition should have debated the merits of those cuts,whether or not they were real,and their impacts on budgets and social programming and their real impact on average Canadians. Instead, the opposition remained silent, failing to perform their duties, clinging to their paid positions for no other reason than fear of unemployment.
When self interest takes the form of self preservation the merit of your elected office is reduced to a mere shadow of its' once respectable self. You have enetered that realm of failed sustainable office.
Layton was quick to pickup on the liberal response to the throne speech and immediately proclaimed the NDP the official opposition in wait. Jack can say whatever he likes as he has no serious hope in hell of ever gaining entrance to Stornaway. Could you imagine the burnt orange drapes of socialism hanging dishevelled in the windows?
The NDP position changes with the wind, and the polls.One day Jacks says this, the next day Jack says that. He routinely criticizes ideas while failing to present us with his ideas. It's easy to criticize when one needs to provide nothing concrete as an option.
Sadly, Harper actually believes the public supports him. I look at him like the artificially inflated Canadian dollar of late and how it has risen as a result of junk mortgage markets and a massive crisis in US public confidence, and think about his rise to power on the heels of a corrupt and broken traditional system of liberal governments. It's not that people wanted the Conservative power structure to crawl back to life, it's just that there was nothing else to vote for except corruption...or the unknown.
So here we are, watching as the opposition to the Harper neo-con movement reduces Canada to dust.
jim bender
woodstock

Hey...You Better Vote on this one!

Question of the day from heart FM

Do you think another 9-holes should be built on the Burgess Park/Standard Tube lands?

http://www.1047.ca/survey.php

An official Statement from The Audubon Society

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY STATEMENT
ON AUDUBON INTERNATIONAL

Hi Jim,

Sorry I wasn't able to respond sooner. I was out of the office at the end of last week and am still catching up on the many e-mails that are sent to this address. I have attached our official statement on the group calling itself Audubon International, which is not in any way connected to the work of the National Audubon Society. I hope this helps.

Sincerely yours,
Liz Pomper

Online Outreach Coordinator
Audubon Policy Office
New York, NY, The National Audubon Society (Audubon) was founded in 1905 for the purpose of conserving and restoring natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife, and their habitats. Audubon is supported by over 400,000 members with state offices, programs, and 500 chapters across the country.

Audubon receives many calls and letters from people who have confused Audubon with a different organization calling itself Audubon International. Since its inception in 1991, Audubon International, funded in part by the United States Golf Association, has been certifying golf courses that pay an annual membership fee as Audubon Cooperative Sanctuaries. Similar fee-based certifications are available from Audubon International to developers of cemeteries, municipal parks, campgrounds, resorts, stores, industrial facilities, marinas, residential communities and preparatory schools.

Audubon is not associated with Audubon International in any way. Audubon does not certify golf courses, or any other development, as being environmentally sound. Indeed, Audubon very often opposes such development. Furthermore, Audubon sanctuaries are protected natural spaces for public enjoyment. No Audubon sanctuary is certified for development.

We ask your cooperation and care in distinguishing between Audubon and Audubon International, and in clarifying that these various certification programs are not endorsed or supported by Audubon.

: Nancy Severance
212/979-3124
nseverance@audubon.org

Hmmm...A strange quote

Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property so that they may more perfectly respect it.

CONservative Easily Survive Throne Speech Amendments

CONSERVATIVES EASILY SURVIVE THRONE SPEECH AMENDMENTS

Of course the CONservative government survived. Why the heck wouldn't they? There is no offical opposition anymore, just a fractured group of people taking up space in the HOC.

Mr Harper could be planning on dropping a bomb on Toronto and there wouldn't be a soul in parliament that would stand up and oppose him and his goon squad of anti-canadians.

Fact is, the oppostion has been beaten down by themselves, not by Harper. They refuse to listen to Candians, and as a result have left themselves standing on the sidelines, while some odd bunch runs the country into the ground. The opposition Liberals refuse to accept advice, and refuse to open their eyes.

Canadas' "CONservatives" have now come up with a new rallying cry. It's nothing that we would be proud of, but for them, the message is clear, they have defeated all of their opposition...including the NDP,the liberals and the greens. Slowly but surely they have taken their place in Canadas' history books by defeating the notion of a natural governing liberal party.

One piece of legislation at a time they are dismantling what was built up by a generation of Canadians. And one piece of legislation at a time will move them closer to the position of a conservative majority...even if Canadians do not like them.

The liberal party has spent an inordinate amount of time fighting amongst themselves, blaming each other for their partys' demise. This has done nothing for their party fortunes and in fact has destroyed a substantial amount of their credibility as a party.

The real problem is that Canadians have lost confidence in politics.

And because of that alone, the CONservatives will undoubtedly continue to climb in the polls.

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SALLY CREEK/AUDUBON INTERNATIONAL

HEART FM BREAKS THE SALLY CREEK/AUDUBON SOCIETY SCANDAL

Over the past few months we have been fighting a golf course developement here in Woodstock with the fine help of a bunch of our friends. Recently we came to the conclusion that Audubon International(the company that the developers of Sally Creek were touting) and Audubon Society were 2 different things.

Today, the Heart FM was able to contact the national vice president of the real AUDUBON SOCIETY and conclusively they mentioned that the society had nothing to do with any developement, and that certifying golf courses was not anything to do with them or their mandate.

They are in the business of protecting wildlife.

So, where do we go from here?

Will Woodstock City Council move forward with this plan, and allow it to continue?

Or will they move to defer the plan for more investigation, or will they move to shelve it?

The latter sounds pretty good to me.

Read A Good Warren Kinsella Article On What The Liberals Need To Do To Gain Support

LISTENING TO PEOPLE WILL GO A LOT FURTHER THAN POLITICAL RHETORIC, INVOLVING FRINGE PARTNERS MIGHT ASSIST IN DEVELOPING A WINNING STRATEGY.

I know I've already dwelled on this matter for a substantial amount of time, but it is interesting to see that the topic still arises like a ghost...almost on a daily basis.

I read a Warren Kinsella article(http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=1e515591-174c-428b-b4b0-d7c85485a612) which dwelled on why the Liberal brand was suffering, and what Dion and the Liberals needed to do to reinvent themselves and position themselves in general in time for the next election. (the story was titled How Dion can get his groove back.)

Well, if it is only about "re-inventing" yourself just to get elected, then the party will be in a mess if that is all you are out for. Changing to only attain power is not a good idea. It reeks of greed. There are a thousand things that need to be done to fix the Liberal brand. Number one is, stop isolating yourselves from the average Canadian, and quit relying on greasy lawyers and retired teachers and school teachers to run as candidates. Look into the future and ask yourselves, what do Canadians see in themselves and in their neighbours, and that is the road you need to take. Ask Canadians what they think, instead of dictating to us, and you might gain a few new people. If it's about injecting new ideas into the party, then you seriously need to add new blood into your party. You will need to go beyond the norm and bring in the alternative to the fold. The people who historically have been pushed aside, are the only "new" blood available to your party. Everything else out there is Conservative or NDP and in some cases, the fledging Green Party.

Canadians are sick of the status quo, but this is all you are preparing to offer us in another election.

The yardstick or system that Canadians like to use to identify themselves on the political spectrum is self described as odd at best. Many people feel that politics is a large intangible, and are not prepared to invest the time necessary to formulate good political opinions, and hence as a result, make decisions opposite to how they feel but quite often ones based upon the historical ideals of their families, or worse, fail to go to the polls come election day.

From the young, to the old, Canadians from all walks of life are feeling out of touch with government, with parties and with the standardized abbreviation of life as presented and depicted in the platform of the day. Not only are the Liberals in dire trouble, but the NDP, the Conservatives and the Greens are all suffering a radical bleed of interested persons from their midst. The ideas presented by the parties do not necessarily reflect the interests of actual persons in real communites. They are rhethoric filled, platform generating machines with no human feelings, but are rife with bad attitude.

Many individuals have decided for themselves they are sick of "bad attitude" and that volunteering their efforts for a party could be a waste of time and energies especially when the party refuses then after an election to support their individual causes, although glad to take their memberships fees. People just feel they are not being listened to, and that parties are just not interested in their views. Sure, there are conventions held by parties, but how many good pertinent ideas get tossed to the floor in favour of supporting more of the mainstream ideas? The vast majority of "smart thought" gets tossed in favour of stale vision. So, why is it that "party's" refuse to make amends, and refuse to look into the future, and then wonder why people turf them?

Because it is easier to remain the same than change.

Because the old trumps the new, and the old power structures that contribute financially, and in other manners generally creating the most wealth for the party, end up having the wealth of their viewpoints heard before any others. They paid their way to be there, and the small guys, get shoved aside.

I think I have come to the conclusion that the only way to initiate some type of change here would be to become more involved in throwing ideas around and hoping somones' big net grabs them up. Perhaps there will come a time when these guys ay actually pay attention, but for this average Canadian, I highly doubt it. You can offer up something to them, only to have it tossed into your face.

That is what is wrong. And I do not think it can be fixed until the entire system of decision making gets a shake up, and a few old toads release their grip on power and the riding associations overhaul themselves and look for new faces. Only then, will there be a Liberal government in Ottawa. The Conservatives went through the same fracture and breakup, and as a result came to power in a minor way, but now are well on their way to a majority,but not as a result of Canadians wanting them so much, but as a result of a natural governing Liberal Party that cannot come to grips with what it needs to do to fix itself.

jim bender woodstock

Expression of Deception

A SUBMITTED ARTICLE BY A.W.

I have read Sally Creeks Expression of Interest. For those of you (that will be most of you) that arent familiar with the term, their Expression of Interest is a 28 page document that supposedly explains why they should be allowed to bulldoze 67 acres of Public Conservation land to expand their 9 hole golf course (which is on property they already own) to 18 holes.

They want us to believe that a golf course is of more benefit to this community than a conservation area.

Their introductory page consists of three statements.

1. An Environmental Benefit: through the addition of a large, vegetated land use and responsible and sustainable maintenance practices. What? Its a conservation area! Its already vegetated precisely the way nature intended.. They are adding NOTHING! They are bulldozing the natural vegetation and substituting a manufactured product. A golf course. There is NO environmental benefit.

2. A Community Benefit: Through the addition of a greenspace that provides recreational opportunities and a location for social interaction and community events. Again ... What? They are adding NO greenspace. The greenspace is already there. Its a CONSERVATION AREA! It also already provides recreational opportunities and a location for social interaction. And admission is FREE! Sally Creek is offering to give you what you already can get for nothing but they will charge admission.

3. A Financial Benefit: through a lease agreement that provides an annual revenue stream to the City in addition to property tax revenues.

Page 6 of the document indicates that the details of the lease have yet to be negotiated so whether or not there will be any financial benefit to Woodstock is as yet unknown. One thing they do propose is that they will pay the City one dollar per round of golf played over the 25 year term of the lease. Gee, a WHOLE dollar. Would anyone care to speculate just what a dollar will be worth in TWENTY-FIVE years? You can bet they will be increasing the fee they charge the public for a round of golf on a regular basis but Woodstocks share will still be a dollar. Are these people familiar with the term inflation? There will be a financial benefit alright but it wont be in favour of the people of Woodstock. If this is an example of the rest of their lease proposal only an idiot would sign on to this deal.

The balance of the document merely expands on the three points referenced above. This document is not intended to inform. It is intended to deceive .

There is NO benefit to anyone but The Sally Creek People if we allow them to destroy a Public Conservation Area and replace it with a manufactured amusement park that charges admission.

aw

Canadian Policy Research Networks Research Report:Lost in Translation: (Mis)Understanding Youth Engagement – Synthesis Report

STUDY ATTEMPTS TO FATHOM WHY YOUNG PEOPLE DO NOT WISH TO VOTE

I read this study yesterday at my leisure and wondered to myself, how much time and money did these guys spend to figure out that young people(and many others...a cross-generational problem I think)are disenfranchised, and not trusting of their partisan peers?

Well, that I cannot answer, but I can tell you that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the problem.

The largest problem with politics in Canada is the party system. The party "leader" determines what the course is for the party, and as well determines what is and what isn't permitted to be said. The local person elected to represent the people, is not elected to truly represent the people, but is chosen to represent the party at the constituent level, and to reflect those party opinions in the local media, and local area. The elected members primary concern is for the party first, his job second, and thirdly the people in his riding.

Locally we have an elected CONservative MPP and MP.

Although both of these people are good and fine people, what they represent is not the majority of people, but a small minority of supporters. These men do not have the support of the commuity, they have the support of their parties.

In the recent Ontario election clearly 54,000 people did not vote for the local incumbent MPP, and only 18,000 people supported him. In the local paper this incumbent was treated as though he had just won a prize fight, when really he had won nothing. It is a riduclous notion that he would assume the community backs him, when clearly three times as many people are opposed to him sucking up oxygen in the legislature. I think he was re-elected because 18,000 people thought he needed job more than anything, not because he did a good job. The status quo is comfortable, and people lean towards what is comfortable. This comfort zone will lead to a period of our elected guy just sitting back and riding the coat tails of the party, and not really accomplishing anything.

A member of the general public may approach the elected member from time to time, and may present the member with a good idea.

The elected member rejects the idea as not being partisan enough.

Many good ideas are trashed as a result of the party system, and the member affiliation to the party.

What can a party affiliated member do for us, that we cannot do for ourselves? Nothing.

Fact is, he can not get anything more accomplished than say an elected NDP member or and independent member. In fact, as a result of his partisanship I will state he will be able to get even less done...like the failed hospital project on hold for so many years now.

Chances are we will not see this hospital until we elect a liberal locally, or a conservative government takes over the legislature.

These reigning parties have a tendency to ignore ridings where they do not have an elected presence. That is the long and short of it.

The reason why young people do not vote is simple and clear.

They don't want to, and they do not believe in what these parties are saying any longer after being lied to by them for most of their lives, and for most of the lives of their parents.

Get rid of the party crap, and you might find a few voters. Get rid of the right to lie when running for election, and you might get a few more votes. Try involving some of us, instead of leaving us on the fringes. At some point the fringe will become much larger than the body of electors who presently vote.

And then, those old and tired party goons will wither and die.

Perhaps after they are all gone, we'll see a resurgence in voters.

jim bender

How Did We Get Into This MEss When The Mayor Said They Had No Developement Plans For A Golf Course? Someone is not telling the truth..I wonder who?

ACCORDING TO MAYOR HARDING...THERE'S NOTHING GOING ON WITH ANY GOLF COURSE IN WOODSTOCK

This is aletter I received from a neighbour after she wrote to the mayor of Woodstock condemning the golf course being built on a park. The original letter to the Sentinel that I wrote is posted at the bottom. Seems kind of odd that here we are, in the midst of trying to save the parks...from our council, our mayor and the developer.

I don't think Harding expected this lady to be a friend of mine.

*****************************

Hi Jim, its your neighbour here. Please read from the bottom up. I sent a letter to Harding and received a reply. Thought you would be interested in it....
Cheers
Rosemary *****


----- Original Message -----
From: Mayor Michael Harding
To: *****

Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:31 PM
Subject: RE: PARKS
Hello Rosemary,
Mr Bender's letter is an opinion piece and is not factually correct. I would direct you to the agenda and report on the city's internet for our last meeting. There is a complete understanding of the issues involved and the steps being taken. If you can't find it on the site, I'd be happy to mail the report to you.Regarding the busses, there are 280,000 passengers a year riding on our system and we have a growth strategy I hope will be before Council in the new year. So on that particular issue I can only say, stay tuned. If you want to know the routes, check out the city web pages and if your downtown, you can pick up a route map at city hall. That should help.
Michael Harding Mayor, City of Woodstock PO Box 40 STN Main 500 Dundas Street Woodstock, ON N4S 7W5 Tel: (519) 539-2382 ext 811 Fax: (519) 539-3275 Email:

-----Original Message-----From: csea ************Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:56 AMTo: mayor@city.woodstock.on.ca
Subject: PARKSHonourable Mayor Harding:I have to agree with the article in the Woodstock Sentinel Review today Page4 Letters to the Editor written by Jim Bender.
Woodstock parks should NOT be turned over, sold off, or any form thereof, to become a commercial venture such as a golf course. This is totally unacceptable. I also feel that you are NOT being a good steward of our tax paying dollars to hire a consulting firm to 'study' the feasibility. In fact, any 'feasibility study' is a complete waste of my money and yours.On the subject of money, I have never seen a city bus with more than two passengers at any given time. Should not the city look to purchase smaller vehicles rather than used TTC buses? A small mini van would transport city travelers more cost effectively, especially since no one seems to use this service to warrant such a large fuel inefficient vehicle. I have also never seen a map of where the bus routes are. If I wanted to take a bus, I would not know where to catch one, or where it goes once I got on it. Why not publish the routes in the What's in Woodstock magazine that comes out periodically?You got my vote last month, but these issues were not on the agenda. I wonder as well with Mr. Bender how they snuck into the plans for our great city?
Rosemary ******

************************************************

So our newly elected (and in some cases re-elected) council has decided to open up the possibility of Burgess and Standard Tube parks being turned over to a developer to build a new golf course. This shows a lack of concern for the future of Woodstock. Who gave them the right to sell off or give away our parks and green spaces? These parks are held in the public trust. The stunned argument they need to come up with more tax revenues is gross and a failure of public policy.I never heard of this once during the election. Does anyone else remember this being on the old councils’ agenda? This is our local greenspace, it belongs to all of us. Some of the property was donated, not so you can build a nice, private golf course. It is gross this item was even placed on council’s agenda or that council actually thought it to be a good idea by hiring consultants to do assessments. This gives one the impression it is a done deal as they are already spending the money to make it happen.Who actually placed it on the agenda I would like to know?Perhaps we should sell off Lansdowne Park as well or how about Roth Park? Maybe even Brompton Park?In an effort to find new ways of bringing tax dollars into the city, our council has decided to spend our tax dollars on an environmental and archaeological assessment on the area. Any idea of the cost? Perhaps one way to have more tax dollars is not to spend them in the first place, especially investigating stunned ideas like this.The potential giveaway of our parkland to the abutting Sally Creek development is disgusting. If we need more taxes, then take it from the freeloading corporations that are already here or on their way to Woodstock - the ones that have an artificially low rate of taxation anyways.Perhaps take back the millions from Blandford-Blenheim we signed away with the Toyota deal and will continue to pay long after we are dead.That might help to alleviate the cash crunch. Better yet, quit spending tax dollars in a loose manner and you wouldn’t have to start selling off our parks.Perhaps tightening your belts a bit instead of searching for new tax extraction methods would be good. The people of Woodstock didn’t elect any of you to sell off our parklands. Pay some heed to that. There should be a public protest on this one. And if there isn’t, I guess we’ll see you all on the golf course.

Stephen Harper...The Drama Queen At Work

CONSERVATIVES "DARE" OPPOSITION TO GO TO AN ELECTION OVER AN OMNIBUS CRIME BILL

Stephen Harpers' minority Conservatives are daring the opposition parties to block a massive anti-crime bill Thursday, saying if they are ready to "die on the hill" over legislation that cracks down on repeat, violent offenders, the Tories are prepared to hit the campaign trail.
The Liberals and the NDP signaled they have no intention of defeating the Tories over the 'Tackling Violent Crime Act,' since they had already passed most of its measures during the last session of Parliament.

I think Stephen was acting up for the cameras.

Justice Minister Nicholson stated that he didn't want any grandstanding on this bill...(he ought to have a talk with his leader then)and he expected that if the opposition parties rejected his bill, that he would be glad to see them die on parliament hill if an election was called.

"It's a game the Conservatives are playing because these bills went to the Senate in May and June," Mr. Dion shot back. "There is no evidence at all that we were stalling, not at all. It's an invention of the government."

Liberal justice critic Marlene Jennings "I think they're trying to throw smoke and mirrors again to convince Canadians that the only party that is serious about keeping Canadians safe are the Conservatives and it's not true."

NDP justice critic Joe Comartin questioned why, if the government is in such a rush, it is reintroducing a law containing four bills that had already been through the parliamentary process and were on the verge of becoming law.

To me this is another fine example of how the parties are arguing and not achieving anything for the people. Taxpayers are not receiving value for the wages paid out to these people..the MP's.

You can bet that even if some Liberals support the new crime bill in their own minds, they will not do so as a result of partisan politics. And as well, numerous CONservatives do not support the bill, but will on the day they vote for it...or they will lose their jobs as well.(and maybe force an election)

Dion has done a good job in keeping Canadians out of the polling stations. This game of brinkmanship that Mr Harper plays will ultimately lead Canadians back to the "natural governing party".

Or it will lead to an influx of independents in the next election.

AUDOBON SIGNATURE PROGRAM IS A DECEPTION...THIS IS NOT THE AUDOBON SOCIETY.

SALLY CREEK GOLF CLUB LIKES TO MAKE US THINK WE ARE DEALING WITH THE REAL AUDOBON SOCIETY...BUT THIS IS A DECEPTION...READ ON...

Audubon groups at odds over names, objectives
By CRAIG PITTMAN
© St. Petersburg Times, published August 7, 2000

Businessman Stephen Cejner was trying to reassure all the people who were mad at him. Sure, his company wants to build an 18-hole golf course amid the dunes and scrub of the North Peninsula State Recreation Area near Daytona Beach.
But he insisted this would be the most environmentally sensitive golf course possible. After all, he said, his company would be "working with Audubon to make it a signature golf course."
No, not that Audubon, not the venerable conservation organization of dedicated birdwatchers. That Audubon Society opposes Cejner's plans to develop half of the beachfront land the state bought to preserve it from development.
Cejner was referring to Audubon International, a New York-based organization more concerned with birdies than birdwatching. Supported in part by $100,000 a year from the U.S. Golf Association, Audubon International collects hefty fees from developers for stamping the Audubon name on golf courses around the country.
To Audubon Society officials, Audubon International is like an evil twin who constantly causes trouble. They say developers frequently promise a golf course project is going to be "Audubon-certified," while Audubon Society members are unaware of or opposed to the project.
"When Audubon International certifies a golf course, it clearly creates a lot of confusion in the mind of the general public," said Charles Lee, senior vice president of Audubon of Florida. "There are cases where the developers go in and get some upfront connection to Audubon International and they wave that around in the government hearings."
It happened last month in Tampa. Environmental activists were questioning the plans for Grand Hampton, a new 1,600-home golf community planned in New Tampa that would plop down houses, apartments, businesses and an 18-hole golf course next door to the Cypress Creek Preserve, a watershed that feeds into the Hillsborough River, the city's main source of drinking water.
So the developers' attorney, Joel Tew of Clearwater, promised that the project would meet Audubon standards. That surprised the board of the Tampa Audubon Society. They sent their president, Gerard Craddick, to the next council meeting to explain to city officials that the Audubon Society had not, and would not, endorse Grand Hampton.
"I attempted to make it clear that there was a distinction" between the Audubon Society and Audubon International, Craddick said.
Council members said they were surprised to hear there was more than one Audubon. Tew told a reporter his client, Toll Brothers, had no idea there was a difference between the two organizations.
In the end, though, the council voted to approve the rezoning for the project -- so long as the golf course signed up for Audubon International certification. Watching the vote, Craddick said he felt like asking the council, "Hello, were you listening?"
The most extreme example of this identity crisis is TwinEagles in Collier County. TwinEagles paid $9,500 to join Audubon International's honor roll, even though the Collier Audubon Society is suing to block the development.
"This Audubon signature certification is being used to justify and allay concerns about environmental misdeeds connected with golf course building," said Brad Cornell of the Collier Audubon Society. "TwinEagles fits the definition for why we don't want to certify golf courses that are displacing natural resources. . . . It's misleading and disingenuous."
Ron Dodson founded Audubon International, which has an annual budget of $2.5-million. He says this confusion happens all over the country. He insists that he dislikes it too, but what can you do?
"Every time we know of where a developer has gone before a government agency and said they were going to be affiliated with Audubon and we have not been involved, it has blown up in their face," he said.
Dodson said he's never heard of the Grand Hampton project in Tampa or Cejner's plans for the state recreation area. As for TwinEagles, it has not completed its certification as an Audubon signature course because of drainage problems, he said.
But he said all three of those projects may yet wind up winning Audubon certification if their owners are willing to play by his rules. If developers are going to build golf courses anyway, he said, why not make sure they don't wipe out every bit of wildlife habitat? Why not help them avoid overloading the course with pesticides and fertilizers?
"A golf course is not a wildlife refuge but they have some attributes similar to a wildlife refuge," Dodson said. Making them environmentally friendly "accomplishes more than standing on the sidelines yelling and screaming about everything proposed."
As far as Dodson is concerned, his organization is just as much a part of the Audubon family as the better-known society, although he concedes, "We're like that weird uncle up in the attic that nobody wants to talk about at the reunion."
* * *
Dodson, 52, was in Florida last week touring potential golf course developments in Bartow, Ocala and Bonita Springs. He makes $79,500 a year stamping the Audubon name on golf course projects from coast to coast and ticking off the Audubon Society. But there was a time when the Audubon Society's magazine hailed him as one of the top 10 environmentalists in the country.
He went to college on a golf scholarship (his handicap now is between 12 and 15) and wound up teaching in Kentucky. But Dodson said, "All I ever wanted to do my whole adult life was go to work for the National Audubon Society."
In 1982 his dream came true. He was hired by the National Audubon Society to be a regional vice president in Albany, N.Y. But the job wasn't what he thought it would be: "I spent most of my time out begging for money."
Then, in 1987, the organization had a $3.5-million budget shortfall. Dodson was downsized.
"It was a traumatic thing for myself, my wife and my three kids when I lost my job," he said. Although Dodson said he harbors no ill will toward his former employer, he also said that when the Audubon president who fired him later lost his job too, "we had a party that day in my office."
Dodson invested his savings in creating his own Audubon job by reviving the Audubon Society of the State of New York. He launched a program in which people paid to register their back yards, businesses and golf courses as Audubon wildlife sanctuaries.
The National Audubon Society cried foul, filing a lawsuit to block Dodson from using any name connected to the 19th-century ornithologist John James Audubon because it would confuse people.
John Bianchi, a spokesman for the National Audubon Society, said the lawsuit was settled and organization officials do not discuss it. That's because there was no settlement, Dodson said -- the Audubon Society lost.
In a 1991 ruling, a New York judge wrote that the Audubon Society does not hold the exclusive right to the name Audubon and had failed to prove there was any confusion over which Audubon was which. She suggested the people complaining about Dodson would "do well to take a lesson from nature" because "where the more varied the species, the greater the chance for succeeding in issues of survival."
* * *
Meanwhile Dodson, thanks to the financial backing of the U.S. Golf Association, had created Audubon International to spread his reach beyond New York. More than 2,500 golf courses around the country have paid $100 to register as Audubon sanctuaries.
Then he began working with golf course developers to design environmentally friendly golf courses that would then be certified as members of the Audubon International "signature" program. They would have to meet certain standards designed to protect the environment, draw up a management plan and agree to site inspections to check the work.
The base rate for the signature program is $9,500 per course, with a $500 a year membership fee. The price goes up depending on how involved Audubon's experts get in the work. For a 2,600-acre project on the site of an old bomb factory in Nevada, Dodson said, he's charging the developer $400,000.
The first Audubon signature course was Collier's Reserve in Naples, Fla., and since it was approved, 14 others nationwide have been joined the list. More than 100 others have applied, but more than 30 have dropped out of the running. Only one signature course has ever been kicked out of the program, Dodson said, the Charter Club at Summerfield in Stuart.
Dodson concedes that golf courses do not belong on some environmentally sensitive sites. A few years ago a Hilton Head, S.C., developer tried to enlist Dodson's organization in planning a golf course on some environmentally sensitive land, and Dodson turned him down flat.
The developer built it anyway, Dodson said, adding, "I'm not sure I did any good in that instance."
Dodson and Audubon Society officials have met to try to figure out a way to eliminate the confusion and perhaps even work together. So far, nothing has changed. Despite their nearly identical names, said Bianchi of the National Audubon Society, "there's very little common ground."

EVERYONE SHOULD WRITE THE AUDOBON SOCIETY IN PROTEST OF THIS

Hi,
I just wonder which portion of the following "CORE BELIEFS" of your organization allows for/applies to the bulldozing of public parklands...in order to build a private golf club in Woodstock, Ontario?
And, is the SALLY CREEK GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB permitted to use your LOGO and information in all of their literature? They had flyers printed off stating that AUDOBON supports the developement of a new golf course in place of a conservation area.
The information they used was taken directly from your website. Can you tell me if permission was granted for this or were they infringing on your copyrights?
Our community is embroiled in a plan to butcher a wildlife sanctuary for a golf course developement.
The developer of that course states that you people and your organization support the dismantling and denaturalization of this conservation area.
The land that the developer wishes to develope is a PUBLIC CONSERVATION AREA with trails, wildlife, and several protected plant species. The woodlot is protected by the WOODLAND PROTECTION ACT for SIGNIFICANT SPECIES REASONS.
Last night in Woodstock, Ontario,Canada, the developer(SALLY CREEK GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB) used your AUDOBON LOGO on all of their literature, stated that AUDOBON supports the developement of a golf course instead of a natural area which was established 50 years ago on a flood plain/cold water creek watershed and that your group prefers this golf course over a green space, natural area.
They are using your influence in advance of a council decision being made on this land.
By you offering up your support for a dollar value, you have become this developers attack dog. Is this the kind of organization you operate? A sell out to the worst polluters, the biggest developers...ie...the most money?
As a community environmental activist, and as a Canadian concerned about non-canadian groups influencing canadian council decisions, I will register a protest against your organizations ability to lobby on the developers behalf. Your group has no right to influence decisions of council in my city and it is an affront to the democratic process that your LOBBY group...the SIGNATURE PROGRAM is a sell off to the highest bidder...or the worst developer. This developer wishes to destroy the habitat of wildlife, the filtering system for our local aquifier,(the forest) and wishes to lock it up, away from the pulic for a bunch of golfers.
Woodstock has 11 golf courses...1 public, 10 private.
Woodstock has only a few parks...i suppose Audobon does not recognize the value of a park...probably because...parks don't buy into your silly membership scam.
How do you give a developer membership in this program...when they do not even own the land in question...so how did you examine this public land..or did someone misinform you on what exactly is going on? Did they tell you that they are still trying to negotiate a deal for this land? Did they tell you they wanted to kill a conservation area..a nature preserve..to build a golf course? Did they tell you that your name would become sullied by innuendo?
They are implying by using your logo on everything from the proposal last evening that you want them to get this land from the city and bulldoze it for a golf course.
I am astonished that AUDOBON would succumb to such low life sell offs..but am not surprised considering how most folks would give in to the mighty green back.
Oxford County where Woodstock is located was identified in a national study as having the lowest greenspace ratio in all of Canada, at less than 12.5% coverage.
Small/tiny pockets of forest do nothing to save wildlife.
New shrubbery and golf greens do not encourage fox, deer,pheasants and wild turkeys to inhabit the area. There will be no birds...and no public access.
7,500 people signed petitions here against this developement.
We had 8,000 people vote in the last election.
The majority oppose this...and will as a result oppose your organizations' influence on what is happening here.
As a result, all of us, will oppose AUDOBON,and the developers.
Now we must fight you as well.
You can answer to this or remain silent.
It is your choice...but I will publish this today...
and you will see it tomorrow in the news.
I am asking for a follow up call today in order to clarify some points that were made last evening in Woodstock Ontario regarding this.
1/ DO YOU SUPPORT THE BULLDOZING OF THESE PARKLANDS THAT ARE PUBLICLY OWNED IN FAVOUR OF A GOLF COURSE FOR PRIVATE PROFIT?
2/ WILL YOU SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF THE GOLF COURSE TO SEE THIS DEVELOPEMENT THROUGH?
3/ HAS YOUR ORGANIZATION EVALUATED THIS SITE OR EVEN BEEN TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPEMENT SITE?
4/ IS IT USUAL FOR AUDOBON TO BECOME INVOLVED IN A PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT ON LANDS THAT A DEVELOPER DOES NOT OWN, AND DOES THAT USUALLY INVOLVE INFLUENCING GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT DEVELOPERS?
5/ IS THE AUDOBON SOCIETY IN THE "BUSINESS" OF SELLING MEMBERSHIPS TO THE SIGNATURE PROGRAM FOR PROFIT?
6/ IF AUDOBON IS A BUSINESS/AND NOT A CHARITY, DOES IT PAY TAXES IN CANADA ON INCOME DERIVED IN THIS COUNTRY THROUGH THE SALE OF IT'S MEMBERSHIPS?
7/ HOW MANY "ACTIVISTS" ARE ON THE PAYROLL OF AUDOBON, OR IS THIS A "PROFESSIONAL" NO FOR PROFIT?
8/ WHY IS YOUR NAME NOT REGISTERED IN CANADA AS A NON-PROFIT?

I find it disgusting that you would SELL your LOGO to the HIGHEST bidder.
I note that anyone can join and use your name for only $9,500.00 US.
Which part of these beliefs do you actually believe in as a group? And how can you apply any of those beliefs to this situation here in Woodstock Ontario?
Our Core Beliefs
The healthy functioning of our planet’s ecosystems—our air, water, and land, and the vast diversity of life on Earth—is worth preserving.
There are places on Earth where human activity should be limited.
Maintaining healthy and functioning ecosystems begins at the local level with policies and practices that protect watersheds, promote biodiversity, and sustain natural resources.
Not only must people take steps to minimize negative impacts to the environment in human-dominated areas of the world, but also strive to enhance the health and functioning of ecosystems where we live.
Finding a sustainable balance among environmental, economic, and social systems is key to sustaining the quality of life for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Our human communities can and must be balanced within the limits of the natural world.
By becoming good stewards of the environment, people and organizations can help to protect and sustain the land, water, wildlife, and natural resources around them.
Scientific information, in conjunction with public participation, should be used to guide the planning, design, development, and management of human communities.
While laws, rules, and regulatory approaches have been, and can be, important tools for protecting and enhancing our natural environment (ecosystems), voluntary efforts are an effective and essential means to protect and enhance the natural environment as well.
Effective collaboration and partnerships among nonprofits, governments, businesses, and the public can lead to better environmental decision-making and can improve the quality of our human and natu