"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 17 October 2013

Things may be changing

Oh common Evelyn…You should know how it works now. Whoever claps the loudest or cries the loudest gets what they want. Don’t you know?…We’re a big corporation now It’s to improve the quality of life for "all" Aurorans. Just add it to the tax bill.…It’s only money. 


I would have agreed before  last night. 

Reaction  of  some Councillors was the norm.

How people in the neighborhood expressed themselves seemed to me to be a breakthrough.

If the land  had a huge price, of course they would not expect the town to pay they said.

The interest  of the larger community was acknowledged.

They want to be heard  but I believe they are also willing to listen.

The  Mayor  did not make the commitment, Councillors did.

I didn't hear Councillor Thompson . Councillors Pirri and Humfreys weren't at the meeting.

The former Mayor appeared to have the subdivision agreement or  part, to  suggest
there was no requirement for in-camera discussion.

The objective of course was to create  mistrust.

It was ever thus.
Convince  the  unwary of dirty deeds by others so that Phillydilly can ride to the rescue and save the day.

The Section of the agreement  not dwelt upon ,was the site  not chosen by the town for a neighborhood park.

 $2 million were taken from the developer  instead.

Former  Councillor MacEachern , Chair of  Leisure Services Advisory Committee consistently argued against neighborhood parks because of  cost of maintenance.

One  development in particular in the south east corner of town, a single street of homes . Less than fifty.

The Councillor argued it was acceptable for mothers with small children to cross Bayview or Leslie  at the traffic lights to reach a park.

The  facility recommended was a tot lot.

The Councillor argued against it. I  believe I won that vote.

The Mavrinac situation  is not clear yet.  Information is outstanding and steps  are needed .

Councillor  Gallo is an eager beaver

But I think the people in the neighborhood  are not unmindful of the interest of the town as a whole .
They don't  want to be  seen as nimbies . At the same time they do want  Council to know how they feel.

It's what most people would do in the circumstances.

I just hate to see that exploited  by cold -blooded unscrupulous individuals who care nothing about anybody but themselves.

And I think we have just taken a step forward


Anonymous said...

Wouldn't that be wonderful. I have reached the stage where watching a meeting of councillors is akin to root canal , It would be great not to flinch as each new speaker take the mic.

Anonymous said...

The former mayor was there for a reason and I'd bet a fiver that it was for her ultimate reason and the not the neighbourhood's. I'm not for or against Councillor Gallo, as I give credit him in that he's proven he has a voice of his own and doesn't need her support for any of his actions. And if she had useful information for him, she could have simply passed it on. I wouldn't doubt that something more is in the works on her part - perhaps starting to be more visible and making a political renewal as a champion of the people. Regardless it's likely she's there to help stir the pot up to a boil.

Anonymous said...

Councillor Mac also rationed out washroom facilities for sports fields. It took a bunch of irate residents, these ones totally justified, to get her to allow one where it was badly needed. I think that was in Aurora Heights. Just before the election which was not likely a help for their slate.

Anonymous said...

Lesson to be learned for the future: If the neighbourhood needs a park why wasn't that part of the plan at the start for what the town & the developer would provide for the area. It will be either a school or a park - end of story. If a school goes in there is still grass, fields and a play area as it is needed for the school children. But having it left open that if more development could still occur this was simply misleading everyone in the first place or at least hiding that fact. Everyone has cookie cutter houses - the largest house on whatever sized lot with minimal backyards the size of a matchbox. And then the kids will be either playing on the streets, going a dozen blocks to another park or sitting at home on video games.

Anonymous said...

It really is quite clear in the documentation despite attempts to make it look like some nefarious plot. Lots of us grew up in small crowded homes with tiny yards. We survived. Now there are parks plus facilities at schools for kids.. Sure, you have to car-pool with neighbours or use older kids/sitters to watch. The one guy cited his kids, 1 & 3 being in danger from traffic. They simply should not be near it at that age without supervision.