When I finally starting reading the comments, however, it became abundently clear that someone made a mistake. And no, it wasn't me.
In the Friday January 21, 2011 posting, I made the comment about Strada that "At maximum capacity, this will permit up to 72 trucks an hour (according to the Township solicitor)".
THEN the comments started...70 trucks a MINUTE; exagerating; please report facts, do the math, blah, blah.
So to reiterate Strada, if all is approved, will be licensed to haul 70 gravel trucks an HOUR - not MINUTE.
Oh yeah, and Council did not insist on financial security for rehabilitation.
Just the facts please, just the facts.
Hold it, hold it....WRONG WRONG WRONG...the minutes of the January 20, 2011 meeting, which have finally been posted, show, in fact that Councillor Malek did NOT ask for a recorded vote and the Strada decision passed with a majority vote of Council. Here is the link to the minutes.
http://melancthontownship.ca/11council/minutes.jan20.pdf
Exactly. Councillor Malek did vote against it. If everyone would just support Council I am sure it would be to everyone's benefit.
ReplyDeleteLOL...choke...gasp; "If everyone would just support Council, I am sure it would be to everyone's benefit????" Are you kidding me? If we did that,we would still be back in the dark ages when Melancthon Councillors, vehemently led by Bill Hill (not Mayor at the time), refused to even provide the public with agenda documents prior to the meetings. Exactly how many Melancthon Council meetings have you been to January 29, 12:17 PM? Or should I just call you Councillor?
ReplyDeletenot a councillor and i have been to some of the meetings, not alot but I read the blog. I just think that if you keep crapping on them they aren't going to respond.
ReplyDeleteThe issue for ratepayers who DO attend these meetings regularly is that despite planners, hydrogeologists, engineers, lawyers and municipal experts who sit in the gallery and provide expert advice free of charge, Council refuses to listen. A ratepayer had to pay for a legal opinion to get Council to provide agendas and documents prior to a meeting. A ratepayers organization had to pay for a planner to apply for an OPA for specialty crop. Another ratepayers group has applied for an OPA to have stronger provisions in place when proponents apply for an aggregate license. For over two years ratepayers requested a demolition control bylaw and nothing was done. Now Council wonders why, when Highlands only has 6 more houses out of 36 to demolish that they can't get anyone to sit on the committee. These are all things Council should have done and took no action. That is where the frustration of ratepayers comes from. If it wasn't for minebuster we wouldn't even know that we have the right to these documents prior to a meeting. We wouldn't know that Council is NOT permitted to have phone around telephone meetings, etc.
ReplyDelete"Oh yeah, and Council did not insist on financial security for rehabilitation.
ReplyDeleteJust the facts please, just the facts."
The FACT is, Council DID asked for securities for rehabilitation. The Township's planner and lawyer agreed with Strada that it was not necessary as it's already covered by TOARC. Council listened to their experts...for once. Even Darren saw the light...eventually.
The FACT is Council does not get off the hook for asking for rehabilitation and then saying they don't need it because on the recommendation of their planner and lawyer they are going to try some convuluted deal to get the MNR to agree to something-good luck with that-or in the alternative go to court to have a judge rule that the agreement our highly paid solicitor has approved is legal and valid. Yes, great advice. And Darren White said TORAC will NOT rehabilitate to the standard in the site plan, but then got pretty quiet about it after that.
ReplyDeletePlus asking for $68,000 was just an embarassment...not nearly enough...it just proved to Strada that they could convince this council to do whatever they wanted and Melancthon's has-been lawyer and planner would help them get it.
ReplyDeleteWhite and Malek "things are gonna change when we get in there"...you weren't voted in so you could "play nice." Tell the planner and the lawyer to bring their skills into the new millenium. Other townships are standing up to bullies like Strada and Highlands,but Melancthon is bending over for them.
$68k is for road works...nothing to do with rehabilitation. Read the agreement.
ReplyDeleteNot enough for roads, not enough to buy more than a decent automobile. The agreement isn't worth much is it?
ReplyDelete9:50 am "read the agreement"? Well we would if it was posted anywhere on Melancthon's website. I guess we have to pay under FOI to get a copy?
ReplyDelete^ see the Jan 6th unfinished business section on Melancthon's website. I'll send you my bill 7:21 ;)
ReplyDeleteIf Melancthon had a website that complied with accessibility legislation (BTW not complying costs up to $50,000 a day if some pissed of ratepayer makes a complaint) maybe everyone could access the information easily without being "Bill-Hilled" for it.
ReplyDeleteCouncillor you are so transparent it is sad. Instead of trying to stir things up all over this blog why don't you make yourself useful and listen to the ratepayers you are suppose to represent and quit trying to defend a council that you yourself have criticized heavily. The ratepayers who follow the issues are making their vision for the Township clear. Any Melancthon citizen, when informed,is more than willing to follow that vision. You are kidding yourself if you think you are smarter than Melancthon ratepayers. You were at the NDACT meeting...you know that the people in attendance are a very representative cross section of this township as well as the general sentiment of the people...what is stopping you from standing up and making a difference? That's why you were given the job.
ReplyDeleteEmail from the Clerk states that the money for rehab is $68,000.00, so what is the truth?
ReplyDelete^ LOL, even the CAO doesn't know? Read the agreement. It's clearly for road works, not rehabilitation.
ReplyDeleteHow in the hell is the public supposed to know what is the truth when Council doesn't? I remember someone asking at a December meeting about the $68,000 rehab being requested and not ONE Councillor said then that was incorrect. Not ONE.
ReplyDelete