I am reminded of a similar story of an Alderwoman who made a political career out of Toronto slums.
Councillor June Marks was photographed visiting a slum, wearing a beautiful pristine white gown and delicate sandals entirely suitable for a royal garden party.
She was an attractive young woman, a darling of the newspaper. Like a shooting star, she shone brightly and briefly in the firmament before vanishing from the political scene. .
Today's Star story is notable for what it leaves out and inaccuracies included.
No reference is made to five failed legal attempts undertaken since March 2008, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpayers , who knows how much to opposing neighbours of the development or to the developer, to obtain an order for a Consolidated Board Hearing into the Westhill golf course development application.
The last decision to deny was made in the Court of Appeal for Ontario as recently as June 10th 2010.
Five times the argument was made. Twice before the Ontario Municipal Board . Three times in a Provincial Court. It failed. Time and time and three more times again.
More than two years and probably millions of dollars .expended in a futile effort to obstruct and delay the applicant's legal right to a straightforward Municipal Board Hearing
No media alert was posted broadcasting the outcome to the community.
The court battle was not supported by the Region of York, South Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. All agencies that should rally to the cause, if there was a cause to be rallied.
It is anticipated the Ontario Municipal Board. because of the two year delay in providing a hearing , will be sympathetic to an early date, possibly early in August.
The applicants have asked for six weeks to be set aside for the hearing. It could conceivably mean a decision before the municipal election.
Since none of the above noted agencies have opposed the application:
Since the Town's planning department recommended in March 2008, the application be given approval in principle:
Since outcome of a board decision will depend on evidence supported by law and environmental science, the Mayor may have good reason to be concerned for the creaky foundation of her political fortunes.
An excerpt from a companion story in the Star on the Judicial Hearing being conducted in Missuassaga might have relevance. It notes:
The significance of the testimony was heightened by Justice Douglas Cunningham’s rejection, earlier in the day, of attempts by the mayor’s lawyers to narrow the scope of the inquiry. They had wanted him to limit the definition of “conflict of interest” to issues where a vote was taken — a narrow description found in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
“Members of city council are entrusted by those who elect them to act in the public interest,” Cunningham said in a strongly worded ruling rejecting that argument, the first setback for the mayor at the inquiry.
“Optics are important. In other words, members of a municipal council must conduct themselves in such a way as to avoid any reasonable apprehension that their personal interest could in any way influence their elected responsibility.”
“Suffice it to say that members of council (and staff) are not to use their office to promote private interests, whether their own or those of relatives or friends,” said Cunningham. “They must be unbiased in the exercise of their duties. That is not only the common law, but the common-sense standard by which the conduct of municipal representatives ought to be judged.”
Back to me again; the Conflict of Interest Act is like every other that seeks to govern conduct or judgement of politicians at all levels:
How precisely does one define judgement?
At what point does political and private interest converge?
Can anyone argue they don't?
If a person has a passion about politics, how they should be conducted and has a lifetime devotion and commitment to the principles of good government, can that be deemed not to be personal?
I don't think so. It's the nature of an individual.
I also think the Mayor is being particularly effective in recruiting the Toronto Star to support her self-proclaimed , sanctimonious, valiant and righteous efforts to save the world from all villains and rapscallions wherever they are to be found.And by Jove, she's the girl with the sleight of hand.
They may be public or separate school board trustees and officials, Ontario Hydro officials, Ontario Municipal Board Members, council colleagues, former political rivals , some developers and sundry others who may be easily set up and promptly knocked down.
Those of us with a closer view of matters have quite a different perspective.
Dress it up however you like, it still ain't pretty.
Posts
1 comment:
Evelyn,
I too am enraged with the continued hypocrisy over tree preservation, as part of our Mayor's plastic efforts as a self-proclaimed tree-advocate.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement:
"I also think the Mayor is being particularly effective in recruiting the Toronto Star to support her self-projected, sanctimonious, valiant and righteous efforts to save the world from all villains and rapscallions wherever they are to be found."
Aurora's tree bylaw under Phyllis' reign is being applied inconsistently and on a most selective basis.
First I heard a kerfuffle about the blacksmith tree. Which of course will have its heritage designation revoked and most likely be shredded.
Then course there are the ones over on Nisbet Drive that had to fall to accommodate a single resident.
In your blog post here:
http://evelynmbuck.blogspot.com/2010/04/all-is-revealed.html
You mentioned:
"Trees were cut down. Unlawfully. No charges were laid. Deliberately."
Was this regarding specifically the property around 15086 Yonge St.?
Or are there others?
Are you able to extrapolate?
Post a Comment