The Head Staff Honcho made a lot of very positive comments about that purchase. Claimed they paid a good price
Posted by Anonymous to Our Town and Its Business at 1 February 2015 at 13:43
*******************
The blog receives comments reflecting negatively on staff. I don't ask that you refrain from expressing your views. But I won't publish them.
I stand by my principle, Council is completely accountable for how the municipality functions.
The statement referred to above was the Mayor's to make.
Mayor and Council are elected to ensure the taxpayers interest is protected in all decisions.
Mayor Dawe's voice is too often conspicuous in it's absence.
Staff were directed by Council to pursue the possibility of the purchase.
It was a Council initiative.
It stands on what was originally town land. It would note be more appropriate for it to become private now than it would have been a hundred plus years ago.
The property rightfully should have reverted to the town at a nominal fee of $1.00.
Just like the soccer bubble will revert at the end of it's lease.
Our M.P. The Honorable Lois Brown certainly did not exerts herself on our behalf on the matter.
But then neither did our Mayor and Council. It was not as if the argument wasn't made.
I made it. It was like battling white cotton batting in a room full of the stuff from floor to ceiling.
By the way, though I dispute the federal soil and ground water contamination designation ,I believe such a property cannot legally be offered for sale without full disclosure to the purchasor.
So the deal may not be legal.
Let's see what our noble representatives make of that.
Will our tiny but mighty resident real estate mogul leap tall buildings to wreak justice on our behalf?
Posts
11 comments:
You have consistently been sensitive with respect to negative comments directed to staff.
In the case now under discussion it is the town's CAO who is involved, as it was his very positive statement that made it appear the town had scored a slam-dunk. If it turns out following investigation that this was in fact the case, well done him and well done town.
I fully understand that councillors are directly responsible for what goes on in our town and are therefore accountable to the public.
But councillors get the vast majority of their information from town staff, from department Directors, and at the highest level, from the CAO.
Unless a member of the public can sit down with a senior member of staff in the company of a councillor, ask questions of the councillor who then relays them to the staff member and awaits the answers, without the presence of a consultant, we are being deprived of our right to obtain specific answers to specific questions, in many if not all cases involving the expenditure of taxpayer money.
This is neither transparent nor accountable. It is unsatisfactory.
To 15:22
There was a meeting with a citizen, Director, Mayor, and Councillor in 2012.
Evidence was presented about an issue with photographic proof.
Today it looks like that meeting may have never happened, based on questions to one of those present.
Sounds like full disclosure was only as far away as the internet. I think it is up to the purchasers to do their due diligence.
I am always reluctant to suggest the town spend money. But this situation might require them to hire experts in contaminates. There was an outfit that inspected the tannery site who were well respected I think. Maybe we will have to do that ?
I'm not a realtor, but I don't think you have to be to know this property was not a $ 1/2 million purchase. It's a designated heritage property. You can't change or alter this property for any type of development than for what it is right now, which is a big garage. Who in their right mind would have purchased this for 1/2 a million with asbestos? Who was responsible for this value? I wouldn't have needed anyone on staff to advise me on anything. It's a bad deal. The icing on the cake is this possible soil and water contamination. Evelyn... $1 is too much. And to think this Town is handling a town budget right now? They make reality shows out of these types of shenanigans.
To 18:21 The Tannery was a bunch of BS.There was no full inspection.Give your head a shake.Maybe an inspection by favored results yeah.
19:06- Isn't it always?
19:06
That is your opinion & may be correct but only Cllr Humfryes voted not to take the tannery out. And that was because of its so-called heritage value - to her. I saw no conspiracy there.
Humfreys would save a broken bird house if it was labeled "heritage". The point is that tannery was demolished for good reason. Development will happen where development fees will be collected and are desperately needed because of all the BS spending that the majority of council members OK'd in last term. Oh and lets not forget the $2+ billion that the region owes.
22:59
I see both sides of that. Were we supposed to just let the thing rot or to try to make some heritage loft community ? The purchasers took it off the town's hands which, from what we are now seeing, might have been a good thing. Time will tell - still early days with our various real estate adventures.
The inspection and statements at HAC were a sham.The reports were conflicting and the tour of the building was bogus.
Post a Comment