Monday, March 24, 2014

CONFLICT OF INTEREST - UPDATED

UPDATE: Port Dalhousie development "deferred' meaning: dead. Wonder what will happen to the corpse of what was once a thriving business and tourism destination. Sad that a development can cause such angst in a community. It happens when elected officials do not listen to the people. 



No, not the one brought forth by Tinfoilhat Whitfield. We're still waiting for some kind a of decision regarding that. 

I'm talking about Conflict of Interest as practiced by Ward 1 Councillor Stephen Passero. Saw it on TV the other day. Sat there, bold as ever, and voted on a resolution that directly affected him involving a pecuniary interest.


Re: Confirmation of Attendance - Councillor Passero - February 23-26, 2014


According to Passero, the reason that he did not bring a request forward in advance for compensation for attending the Good Roads Conference held in Toronto was because he had gone to the same conference three years earlier and did not have to get pre-authorization. (Please file that excuse along side "The Dog Ate My Homework" in the Lame Excuses File.)

Seriously, Eddie Haskell. Can't you come up with anything better than that? Of course the "blame" was ultimately set at the feet of town clerk Carolyn Kett who was not in attendance on March 17 to defend, explain or even answer questions regarding the issue.

After some discussion where Mayor Martin tried to muzzle Don Lubberts who asked a couple of pertinent questions, a vote was taken and Stephen Passero voted in favour of confirming his attendance at the conference which included expenses of over $1500. Nice one, Stephen. You really are mayoral material, that is, if mayors make it part of their agenda to vote retroactively to pay their expenses.  

Cause that's what you did, Stephen Passero. A new councillor might not realize that it was necessary to request expenses be paid, but a three years' experience, mayoral wannabe? Oh, I know that there is some little loophole you managed to slither through, but the episode points up something far more insidious. You really are a tool.


Editor's Note:  Just listened to council audio. Meeting lasted about forty minutes with a time-out for a Closed Session. Tom Kuchyt will be acting CAO for a year. Resolution carried. It appears that the council approves of the job that Kuchyt is doing. That is a very good sign. 

18 comments:

  1. CorruptionFighterMarch 24, 2014 at 7:48 PM

    If dougie boy is upset, that is a good thing for the local taxpayers as he was thwarted in whatever his latest screw job was then. Maybe he drove by Bay Beach and counted how many $$ he came so close to getting in that brown paper bag late at night. It certainly was not going to be a cheque.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kinda guess that his plan is unraveling. Whitfield has no money; everyone in town knows that. How could he afford to file a lawsuit and pay a lawyer? Lawsuits are costly no matter what side you're on. I lived that. It is so apparent that the Rainer Hummel letter was pre-arranged. I recently heard that R. Hummel has expressed a similar attitude toward the region. He has a lot of developments on the drafting board, like the huge one in St. David's and his boutique hotel in N-O-T-L. Not much happening with either of them. Have heard that Mr. Hummel is building a huge home in Florida though.

      How dare you imply that there is corruption in Fort Erie! You may find yourself on the other end of a S.L.A.P.P. lawsuit.

      Delete
    2. CorruptionFighterMarch 25, 2014 at 6:35 AM

      I don't have to imply corruption Madam Editor, the courts have already proved and convicted though it was a U.S court.

      One of our so called "finest" should be escorted back over the bridge soon after his too brief sojourn in prison. Public officials should be at least held to the same level of accountability that the public they serve has to abide by. That's the theory anyhow. It seems in Canada these days being a public official implies far too often that they can get away with far too much and few are any type of example to look up at. Purdy is the tip of the iceberg with the NRP and had officials here had any say, it would have all been swept under the carpet. Exception to this now disgusting rule is THE FOUR and their efforts to clean up decades of local government filth. Have they made mistakes?? likely but not too bad for mostly first termers that are paid a whopping 12,000 a year which is but a fraction of what most public employees make.

      Corruption in Fort Erie?? no it doesn't happen here....yeah right. Bay Beach would have been a 12 story monument to public corruption had dirty doug and the thugs had their way.

      Delete
  2. I will watch the Cogeco taping of the Council meeting and make a copy this could be one way to get that bum off the Council.

    ReplyDelete
  3. All one has to do is pose this scenario to anyone:

    A waterfront village has one piece of public land fronting a public sand beach. The property also includes a couple of parking lots. It has been neglected and there are derelict/empty buildings. The village is part of a larger township. The town planner, who does not live in the community, offers the suggestion that the property be sold or developed. A proposal is sent out to developers and one wins the right to develop the property. The developer comes up with a P3 agreement where he will build two high rise towers but the public will still be able to access the beach through a boardwalk entrance. There are public amenities included in the proposal. There are no other high rises along the water; the by-law would have to be changed to allow for the twelve story towers. It would completely change the character of the village which is made up of cottages, lakefront estates and many new builds.

    What do you think of this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CorruptionFighterMarch 25, 2014 at 9:03 AM

      I think you missed the part where the said local official GAVE it to them free gratis in exchange for an outhouse and a vending machine. Not bad trade for at least 2 million $$(in what 2002 dollars) worth of the last and best beach for miles in any direction. The best part was the spin job of turning the local economy around/paving all our streets in gold etc. Since when has an apartment building ever done that. Oh I forgot when they built Albany Place that turned the local economy around same with the CB walled community.

      Said local official thinks his constituents are very stupid eh doug.

      Delete
  4. Sharon, there was no RFP sent out to developers when Molinaro was chosen. There were only two developers and they were hand selected by town planners. A RFP was put out in 2003 but there were no takers (I believe that was for the North side). A proposal did come forward by some local entrepreneurs but it was turned down by the powers-that-be. So why would they turn that down when it would have been a small scale on the North side that would have fit with the community? Why was there no RFP sent out and why were only 2 developers chosen?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Two developers were selected, one of which built high-rises. I remember Martha Lockwood arguing the high-rise was best because it would allow more green space uplands for the public. How was that to happen when all the rest of the space had to be set aside for the toad habitat by stipulation from the Ministry of Natural Resources because the condo took away the only hibernating area for an Endangered Species? The Town didn't disclose that information for over a year, the plans only showed a sand hill to accommodate the toads and the Molinaro video even featured a skating rink to the side of the condo that was never to be.

    What was the public REALLY getting, Martha? A locked pavilion at the back of the building that taxpayers would pay for along with condo fees that certainly had to be pre-booked to rent, one more woman's toilet and no change rooms, no concession stand [what vending machines?] and a walkway corridor to the beach. The outdoor patio that the taxpayer would have to pay upkeep for would also be portioned off for the restaurant patrons use.

    ReplyDelete
  6. from the neighbourhoodMarch 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM

    yeah Martha, how did your constituents benefit?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm just trying to jog everyone's memory over what has happened in the past decade or so regarding the Bay Beach Properties and how we were lied to and betrayed and came this close to losing our beachfront property to a developer.

    However, we are in for another fight because the mayor and his cronies are working hard to unseat the four councillors who stood firm in favour of the people who elected them. The COI lawsuit is absolutely disgraceful and hopefully, it will be exposed for the politically motivated hit job that it is. People have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars from their own pockets to save this piece of land for future generations and the four councillors are still paying exorbitant amounts of money to defend themselves from the mayor's revenge. Good must prevail. There will be much money spent to defeat the four in the upcoming election. Too bad we can't know who is supporting the various candidates financially beforehand but I can guess. Many "deals" and "contributions" will never be accounted for. Guaranteed. If you think the last couple of elections were bad, fasten your seat belts. No sense wondering why. It's because there are finally candidates challenging the Old Boys. And four of them got elected in 2010 and the mayor had to suffer the embarrassment of winning by only five votes. He still won though. We cannot allow the Old Boys (and their camp followers) to win in October. We will lose our precious beachfront land for sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CorruptionFighterMarch 26, 2014 at 8:26 PM

      How I wish you were not right Madam Editor.

      But if it is to be a fight for something as right as this I say BRING IT ON. Personally I would love to challenge dirty doug and all this thugs for a one time winner take all contest right on the beach. All of them at the same time as good must prevail sooner or later and I might just get lucky even in my present condition.

      Any takers there dirt bags??

      Delete
    2. Stay tuned. I think that Karma has made a person-to-person call to Mayor Martin. And Tim Whitfield. Rumours are flying - mostly about Whitfield's reputation around town. Wouldn't be surprised if Whitfield leaves town owing money.

      Delete
  8. One has only to look at the people and companies that supported Doug Matin for Mayor, to dedeuce who will back the Chamber's cronies, in the coming election, our only weapon against their money bags is the "Truth" about what they have done to our Town, Our Town belongs to the people not a business fraternity, the bible say's "The truth will set you free" our people are good people and are not there for the money and to enrich themselves or get their family cushy jobs at Town hall, our people love their Town and have had enough of the raping of our rights.

    ReplyDelete
  9. paying attention and taxesMarch 26, 2014 at 8:13 PM

    further to the history lesson, in the three of the last four terms of four years, only the term with Lockwood, Annunziata and Whitfield with mayor Martin's fourth vote approved a private condo development at Bay Beach.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Exactly. Annunziata, Whitfield and Lockwood were all One Term Wonders. Yet, they managed to help put the only public beachfront land in jeopardy of being developed. Three of the new councillors (Hill, Lubberts and Collard) have managed to do a lot for the people of the community yet they are not given credit in our biased local media.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rumor has it that the Town wants to buy some land. Why who knows.!Why is the Town even thinking about buying more property? Have the old Boys got a new plan?
    Is this another Ridge Rd event? Town Buys land then controls who they sell it to? Unfortunately the Ridge rd Buyer had a case of Buyers remorse & wants the Town to buy it back! & complains that the Town is anti development. This other property is different. No open market sale. This transaction needs to be questioned & full disclosure by all parties needs to be open for public scrutiny. Just thinking outside the box but the location would be ideal for a commercial grow op but maybe only for a Town selected candidate. Is the Town in the land speculation Business? Hey buy it at current vacant land value then sell to the highest bidder as long as the sale is open to all Buyers but lets not cherry pick & lets not engineer who is the buyer. This is still a democracy. For those of you reading this please refer to the council meeting this year, where Council heard a presentation from the company that wanted the Jarvis street Pharma property to be rezoned for a Commercial grow op & the rep stated that Mr Thibert was pushing for another property as a location NOT Jarvis Street. While it is commendable that Mr Thibert felt that the Jarvis St location was in a residential locale & really not suitable for this type of enterprise, I wonder whether the site preferred is the one the Town is considering buying?

    ReplyDelete
  12. CorruptionFighterMarch 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM

    This shows the level of trust we have in our local gov't when every decision is questioned and turned over to look for dirty dealings.

    Thanks Doug, you're directly responsible for this feeling that you and your crony's have spawned over the years. It's time you all left.

    ReplyDelete

This blog no longer publishes Anonymous comments. Just use a nickname and comments will be considered.To use a nickname, please fill in the area of "Name/URL" with your nickname, It is not necessary to fill in the URL portion.

PAST ISSUES