Look Look I did it again

I wish to respond to your blog.

Firstly, the granting of a charitable tax receipt by the OHF does not mean there is a sale involved. A right of use can be considered a gift and attract a receipt. The nature and condition attached to the gift determines its nature.

The discussion about the town getting part of the property and letting OHF sell part did not emanate from the OHF, but rather the Town(See www.bryanmoir.ca)

Finally, as I said before, a thorough review by a competent solicitor hired by the town confirmed that Mrs. Bartley-Smith intentions were to preserve this property. I concur with that view and even suggested that a court decide the issue, which OHF were not interested in.

Does not the fact the OHF is interested in a custodial agreement fly in the face of their position that they can do with the property what they want?

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

The foregoing is a comment to my post about the Ann Bartley Smith lands and Ontario Heritage Trust.

There's a reference to Bryan Moir who was a candidate in the last election.He was never a Councillor so, wherever he is now, he was never in a position to speak with certainty about the town's actions.

His web site references a letter in which he claims Ann Bartley Smith put a curse on the land. and suggests she and her husband are buried there.

He also claims to have been a founding member of S.W.A.T. So how much credence should we give to his statements?

There is also a contradiction in the claim, the town proposed development, while at the same time retaining a lawyer to confirm Ann Bartley Smith's intent was the opposite.

While I am not disagreeing the town obtained a legal opinion to opine on Ann Bartley Smith's intent, it still seems to me, if that's what she wanted to do with the land, that's what she would have done.

People do make straightforward bequests in wills, don't they?

And....wasn't that will challenged in court by the son? And upheld?

I'm just asking.

We have a custodial agreement with Heritage Trust of Ontario. It has been in place for years.
This week we have to try to change the mind of an official that a permeable product, very expensive, should be used to pave the parking lot at Shephard's Bush.We have a federal grant to pay for two-thirds of the project.Our share is $250,000.

Nobody should have any illusions that agreement gives us anything but responsibility for maintaining the property. At the time we were planning the artificial turf installation, Councillor Gaertner noticed a clause in the agreement that concerned her. It required permission for anything we do there. And further requires that anything we do, they can order us to undo at any time.

Councillor Gaertner successfully moved the clause be negotiated out of the agreement. Well,
that didn't happen.

No sir...A custodial agreement on the Ann Bartley Smith lands would do nothing but cost us money in exchange for Nothing, Nada, Zilch and Zero.

It's an illusion Mayor Morris is planning to point to, as an achievement in her re-election campaign.

Like the custodial agreement with the McLeod lands on Leslie Street owned by the Oak Ridges Moraine Trust. We get to pay four years back taxes and don't even get to take a walk in the woods for another six .

Like the Promenade Consultant Study which the Mayor claims is a greater investment than any Council has ever "invested", is, as we speak, restoring the downtown core to a vibrant commercial centre.

Smoke and Mirrors. Smoke and Mirrors.