Seconded by Councillor Harold Kim
That the Dec 4 2015 offer to the town to purchase lands known municipally as 21 Golf Links Drive,
Aurora put forward by Highland Gate Developments Inc., be rejected ;and
That Highland Gate Developments Inc be requested to hold off on addressing any encroachments until such time as the OMB matter of appeal has been fully decided; and
That the town solicitor be directed to retain legal counsel and necessary experts to represent the town in the appeal by Highland Gate Developments Inc., and
That Highland Gate Developments Inc and Highland Gates Ratepayers Association be encouraged to continue their dialogue to resolve this matter with facilitation by town staff ; and
That town staff continue to update Council regarding the outcome of any such future discussions;and
That Town staff respond to the lawyers for Highland Gate Developments Inc. and inform them of Council's direction and position on this matter .
No complaints please about information overload.
I tried and Stephanie tried to copy Councillor Mrakas' resolution from Facebook to Blog and it simply would not budge.
I had to go back and forward to transpose the copy. That takes a lot of patience. Patience I did not know I possessed.
There were recorded votes on various clauses of the resolution but the first passed with a majority of five. Councillor Gaertner was absent. The negative votes were for continuing negotiations.
The Auroran reported Councillor Mrakas was angry and said the town and residents should be insulted by Highland Gate Developments Inc. offer to sell the golf club for $98.1 million.
The offer was made at a meeting held on Dec.4th. Friday.
I'm not sure why "residents" should be insulted . I'm not. It merely illustrates foolishness to contemplate such a purchase.
I am concerned that if it was town business, that's a bit murky, there appears to be no record
of a public meeting.
If the meeting was between Ratepayers and developer ,then obviously it's not our business.
Any more than how much the Ratepayers spent to pursue their objective.
If that was the objective, why did the town host all those meetings ,renting space and stretching the issue out for so long?
What exactly was that about? We're the meetings advertised to talk about buying the golf course or developing the golf course? There is a difference.
Now we have Councillor Mrakas reaction and the resolution. Nothing prepared us. I wonder when were they were planning to let the rest of us in on the plot.
Seems there never was an intention to work together to make the plan acceptable and it was all a sham and a colossal waste of time.
Except of course for leaning on the developer to abandon his rights and plans to develop and surrender the property to the RTepayers or the town.
Not clear which.
Not exactly kosher.
My reason for transposing the resolution is to read it together.....once,twice,three times for clarity.
Which escapes me.
Staff are directed to inform the developer the offer is rejected. Which offer? The offer to sell or the price? doesn't seem to be the development.
The developers are "requested" to hold off on "addressing" the "encroachments" until th OMB decision is made on the appeal.
A request to the developers seems like seeking a favour. Hardly appropriate in the circumstance of hostilities declared.
Staff are directed to retain legal counsel and necessary experts to represent the town in the appeal.
In what way are they to represent the town ? Is it about rejecting the offer to sell the property for the price? Or about rejecting the application to develop on the basis of what? Neighbourhood opposition?
And finally developer and ratepayers are "encouraged" to keep talking with town staff present to facilitate matters. To what end? To haggle the price of the land down ?
It's all very confusing. Not the least transparent.
Nothing in the Municipal Act gives a municipality the right to wrest a man's land away from him at a price he is unwilling to accept for a purpose that is not in the public interest and hasn't even been discussed with the community at large.
It may be people have a right to be angry and insulted. It's just not clear who they should be angry with or insulted by.