Oh, do be cautious. Evelyn. Fiefdom builders do not
appreciate challenges to their turf.
************
What do I have to be cautious about. I'm just stating facts. I don't know anything about a $300.admission event. So I can't say anything about that.
I do know that after registration for election closes. everybody registered is a candidate. The outgoing council is
It cannot commit the municipality or the upcoming council to anything substantive,
particularly financial and especially legal.
A rental lease ordinarily starts with the first and last month's rent and keys exchanged. Ordinarily there's a termination clause.
Why are we hearing the Armories building will be for sale?
Is a ten year lease without a termination clause. really a transfer of ownership for a pittance of the building's value? Somebody must know these things. Shouldn't it be us?
Rent for this building started on February 1st. Two months after the current council took office. Four months after the election.
I think Council and the community is entitled to answers. I intend to ask them.
I don't think the nation's security is at risk. Do you?
Posts
4 comments:
The first was Ballard's fundraiser for the Rangers - not the hockey team.
The majority of last term's Council were lame ducks, for four years. A real canard!
Was the renegotiation (or whatever) of the lease by the "former" an unauthorized act to commit the municipality or the upcoming Council to anything substantive, particularly financial and especially legal?
If this is the case then her action smells worse than overripe limburger.
Council and the community are definitely entitled to these answers and any others for which the questions are as yet unasked.
Not even Aurora's security is at risk here. Certainly not the nation's.
Carry on!
There is a much larger picture.
Look into the history Ev.
It is there right under our noses.
Time for Council to sit down with senior staff and
finally ask the tough questions. Then to ask why they
were not informed without having to ask. From the
answers, you can collectively decide if heads should
roll. From the outside looking in, it seems likely.
Is the "lame duck" issue actually written into the Municipal Act or is it more of an "unwritten" rule? If the latter, your argument is moot.
I hear people talk about the "Lame duck" but I have to think that if there is a period of time that the council cannot legislate by law, why does the term end then?
Post a Comment