Pressure Techniques

Susan Walmer knows them all. But we may have discovered the path of resistance. I will respond to every letter and respectfully present the facts.

It's better than what goes on in a council meeting.

For one thing, in a debate, you can't keep repeating your argument to emphasize the point. You can't respond to every point made 'cos you only have two chances to speak.You can't criticise another councillor, such as suggest they may sitting on their brains. No matter how insane or perfidious you may think they are. You can't tell them that they are nothing but a bunch of panderers and or associates.

You have to be eternally civil and respectful and that's often quite a strain.

I so wanted to say to Councillor Gaertner on Tuesday; "I cannot believe what you just said, "

Councillor Gaertner is known for saying stuff that sucks the air out of the chamber, leaving everyone with mouths open like a fish out of water.

I had made the point, an O.M.B.hearing of five weeks would likely cost $500K. With approval in principle of the application recommended by planning staff, a decision to refuse would have no chance of success.

Councillor Gaertner agreed the town would be vulnerable in that circumstance and suggested it isn't proper for staff to make recommendations to approve an application in principle when council is opposed.

Councillor Gaertner is very proud of having been re-elected. And rightly so. Conscious of seven years of experience, she is confident of superior knowledge and judgment.

A person would have to have a good understanding of the Planning Act to understand how far off base the comment. But three other Councillors joined Councillor Gaertner in voting to reject planning staff's recommendation.

Councillor Michael Thompson was absent from the meeting. It meant we did not have the mandatory odd number to guarantee a majority vote either way. There was no decision. The issue has to come back to Council.

If Councillor Thompson is not back next Tuesday. If the tie vote holds. We will be heading into an O.M.B. hearing with a potential price tag of $500K with no hope of defending the indefensible.

Councillor Ballard says we should not "cave-in" every time a developer "threatens" an O.M.B. hearing. He acknowledged he is not a planner. He didn't say the town's planning staff advice was not worth considering or acceptable.

Councillor Gallo didn't say much of anything that I recall. Councillor Humphreys didn't either.

It is a very cost-significant decision. We will be spending $500K of taxpayers money to fight a battle we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

That's more tax revenue than we collect in a year from five hundred homes of average assessment.

Opposing residents have clearly been misinformed. By voting against the recommendation, Council members are as much responsible for promoting misinformation as is Susan Walmer for disseminating it.

Other than the blather from Councillors Gaertner and Ballard, it would be kind of nice to know the rational of the other two Councillors for voting as they did.

There is no obligation to participate in the debate. To vote is mandatory.