"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Thursday 10 December 2015


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "THIS MORNING'S LESSON ...BOOK OF THE MONTH": 

I have a question, please. sorry if it is something I should know
It says that the town should hire the legal person/firm. whatever to represent it for the OMB hearing
Now, does that mean the ratepayers' group would not have their own representation ?
What I think i would like to know is if the town is an active participant or just an observer. 

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 10 December 2015 at 16:49


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "NO BUSINESS LIKE SHOW BUSINESS": 

Better to wonder how that proposed development would affect their property values.

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 10 December 2015 at 16:51


And the last shall be first. 

Nothing...absolutely nothing ...will negatively impact property values in a stable residential neighbourhood in Aurora. The suggestion is bogus. 

 If the Ratepayers Association purchased the golf course, an unlikely possibility, cost would be distributed among benefitting residents, like a retail business improvement area.

Home values would move  into another bracket and perhaps be slower to sell because  of a smaller market . Cost of maintaining the property would drive many current homeowners to sell. 

Assessment would increase several times and taxation accordingly. 

Of course , if Council can be persuaded to buy the golf course, the residents have it made in the shade at the expense of all everyone else  in the community.

Town staff are directed to inform lawyers for the the developer, the town rejects the offer.

The news story quotes the Ratepayers' President the neighborhood is  having to re-think their 
position due to higher than anticipated cost. It could mean the neighbourhood recognizes 
how inappropriate such a purchase would be.

The resolution encourages the Ratepayers to continue meeting with the developer with town staff available to "facilitate" the discussion. 

What exactly does that mean? 

The Developers are obviously at the point of recognizing Council has agreed to be completely political. The objective is to compel someone else to make the decision. They will cover their arses all the way.

We are watching a blatant, clumsy, unprincipled exercise of marshaling  the entire Town of Aurora administration to that end ?

The clauses in the resolution makes it difficult to come to  a different  conclusion. 

I wish I was wrong. We are all degraded.

The answer to the first question may be easier.

The Planning Act requires a municipality to make a decision within three months of an application. 
Failure triggers the automatic right to an Appeal to the OMB.l 

This proposal started prior to  the election. Ratepayers had already retained legal counsel by the time of the campaign. 

It appears Club Lknk and Highland Gate Development Inc had an advantage because the two,are one and the same. 

Nevertheless a subdivision agreement must be approved and signed  for development to proceed.

The clause in the resolution "requesting"  the developer not to "address" encroachment matters" until OMB decisionI is final . It appears  Highland Gate has the right to "encroachment". 

Why else would the town " request encroachment matters not be addressed." 

A municipality maintains a one foot reserve to control access to public roads and services.

Could be Highland Gate a has a right of access to roads services , or "encroach"so to speak.,

Quotes in The Auroran indicate the R.A. President may be the $98.1million dollar price tag is a little rich. Even if the town is the potential buyer. 

If the option was to buy the land rather than oppose  the development at an OMB hearing....
and buying the land is no longer an option...opposing the development may no longer be the option of choice. 

Despite time already wasted the fight may be over before it begins. 

And that my friends, may be the real reason for Councillor Mrakas anger and the vote split. 

The Mayor and his faction did not vote to reject the developers offer to sell the land to the town. 

He wants it kept open for negotiation.

if the Ratepayers decide they don't want to waste more time and treasure pursuing a will-o'the wisp the town will be compelled to defend their non-decision on the applications. 

A somewhat difficult task for legal counsel and other experts.

Now  it's just a matter of how much more they are willing to spend to save face and blame the OMB for the decision that has to be made. 

We never did  hear the professional advice on the merits of the plan. Like legal and planning opinion. 
They would get that behind closed doors. 

We pay for it but we're not entitled to hear it. 


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "SIMPLE SIMON MET A PIEMAN GOING TO THE FAIR....YOU...": 

Simon isn't the only one who is simple, it seems.

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 10 December 2015 at 23:50


Anonymous said...

It is bogus to suggest that homes that back onto greenspace are worth more than the very same properties if they didn't?

Anonymous said...

Loved the Developers part of offering to sell the land at market value. The plot of this story is interesting. The ending unfortunately is quite predictable, the performances from the actors are poor. I give this show a 3.5/10

Anonymous said...

My daughter is in real estate - the answer to your question is " Yes. abutting on green space is always worth more.
Unless something nasty or irritating takes place on that green space. "

Anonymous said...

Exactly, 09:38. Which makes Madam Moderator wrong.

Anonymous said...

That vote could change. Gaertner will want to have her say,

Anonymous said...

The golf course claimed they could not sustain their operation because of their costs.
I do not believe them as there is another golf course in Oakville getting the development make-over too. But
there would be no reason to believe that the town, the ratepayers' group or even a combination would fare any better.
Imagine trying to maintain a park that large.