Two More Factually Incorrect Statements.

During last Tuesday's Meeting.

With the Agreement signed with Whitwell Developments described as owners in my hand, I reminded Council the town does not own the Petch House.

We have already received a report at no cost and then spent an unidentified sum on another report which established again the building cannot be moved in one piece and the likely cost to take it apart, replace rotten boards with authentic material from a building of similar vintage if one can be found and put it together again has a price tag of $4oo,ooo.

A further recommendation from general committee is to spend upwards of $5 thousand for a "more detailed" price on what it would cost to take it apart, replace rotten material with authentic boards in good condition from a building of similar vintage and design a new facility suitable for use by some group or organisation which have yet to be identified after a six year search was approved by Council on Tuesday.

Part of my argument was we should not spend public money on a structure we do not own.

After I completed my argument, it's what we do in debate, Councillor Gallo plaintively complained I was introducing new material to which he was not privy.

It was a factually incorret statement.

The agreement was circulated to all Councillors along with Mr. Garbe's report and other supporting material for the general committee meeting.

Councillor Mac Eachern stated emphatically, "The Town does own the building"

Well...no. The agreement clearly identifies Whitwell Developments as Owners.

That too was factually incorrect .

When the agreement was written, the building was re-located in one piece, with the roof intact, six years ago. It stood up to the move and there it still sits.

They agreed to move it again, build a foundation and hook up utilities. That was the town's requirement..

Developers don't really have a choice in these matters. They smile politely and dance to any tune, just to get on with their business. Time is money.

It is six years later, neither a site of choosing nor apractical use has been identified.

The building can no longer be moved in one piece.

The full state of deterioration can not be determined without the inside being dried out.cleared and scraped clean of mould, dead animals and other extremely nasty stuff.

I do not believe we may assume Whitwell Developments will see this building which they own, in the same light as when they made the commitment to move it wherever the Town desired.

My argument is, before another red penny of public money is spent, we need to discover if Whitwell will agree to a different commitment to that specified in the legal contract.

Planning approvals for their project are safe in hand and realised. They can no longer be held hostage.