I have to say, despite my snippy remarks, I welcome Tim the Enchanter's contribution to the Blog.
Perticulaly when references to town records are provided.
I suspect The Enchanter is a professional; maybe in municipal service. It gives a valid reason for anonymity and also an unlikely candidate in our upcoming electio
Something was amiss with the computer yesterday. Everything wasn't coming through.
I sent a couple of notices of motion forward. One on the Farmers' Market Bylaw, the other on
employee vacation entitlement. Staff wanted me to have the current infrmation on vacation entitlement. It was sent but I didn't get it.
I did receive a copy of Monday's Heritage Advisory Committee Agenda with attachment. A report from the Heritage Planner, vetted by the Executive Leadership Team .appears to have been the main item of business.
I don't know why the committee received the report.
It notes the following:
General Committee received HAC Report No,14-001 on March 4,2014 and recommended the item be referred to a Public Planning Meeting . On April 23rd, the Public Planning Meeting waas held to receive comments from residents. Council directed staff to report to GENERAL COMMITTEE on May 20th 2014 addressing matters raised by the community at the Public Planning Meeting on April 23rd 2014.
The Heritage Advisory Committee had received recommendations from staff on Feb 14th and recommended the recommendations be deferred to the March 4th General Committee meeting
of Council.
I haven't seen the GC agenda yet . I'm informed however despite a substantial majority of property owners adamantly opposed to continuance on designation ,the Advisory Committee recommends Phase 2 of the Heritage Designation Study be undertaken.
I am truly at a loss to explain why H.A.C. received further opportunity to advise on the issue.
Or why, after the Public Planning Meeting when both sides received full opportunity to present arguments, proponents were given yet another chance at the H.A.C.meeting.
Opponents are now compelled to repeat their arguments as delegates at Tuesday's meeting.
Or why, when the Study was undertaken at the initial request of a minority of property owners, it has not been halted in the face of powerful opposition by a substantial majority.
Getting a decision through the public process is lengthy at the best of times .Mind deadening tedious at the worst.
But five times , February,March.April and twice in May is utter insanity.
It seems it never did have anything to do with a neighborhood objective.
One might even suspect the Heritage Advisory Committee is driving the bus.
After the Public Meeting, I figured the tires on that bus were flat. Even if they keep poking away, anything that squeaks of a heritage designation is going to end up in the courts.
ReplyDeleteHaving attended that HAC meeting it appears that those in favor of the district are scrambling to find anything that can be used to advance it to phase 2, and I mean anything. What is being turned back to council is a more concentrated boundary for the study that shrinks the area, removing some of those opposed.
ReplyDeleteThis contraction now begs more questions as to both the integrity of the proposed district and just who it is supposed to serve.
Even jettisoning some of the opposition the raw math is still not in favor of proceeding. 10+% in favor, 20+% opposed and 60%+ unknown.
The fact that there is such a large unknown should be reason to pause even abandon, but it is being used by those in favor as a reason to advance to phase 2. Everything will be worked out in phase 2, or course by advancing to phase 2 it sets a precedent of approval in principle. How can that be established with only 10+%?
Conservation districts are nothing if not a demarcation by boundary. We learnt at that HAC meeting that the reason the North East conservation district boundary fell short of Wellington was because of resistance. The South East boundary doesn't reach Yonge Street because they anticipated opposition.
So what is before council now is some mashed up thing that pretends that a part of our town grew up in isolation from its neighbors, and it will continue to morph and change until it captures the minimum # of those in favor to justify its existence.
Agenda is up
ReplyDeleteWith all of the above said (and I am 11:42) I do have to give credit to John for getting into the race, putting himself out there and having a go at it.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to Geoff Dawe, many votes last race for him were because he wasn't Phyllis Morris. So now at least it will be a race and Mayor Dawe will be forced to give us his vision, his ideas, etc. to counter Gallo's and why we should have him stay on.
Wisdom does not always come with age nor does age automatically equate with sound experience if we were never wise in our decisions along that path. Being the leader means you have to take on a completely different role than being one of the others sitting around the table. And it may be far from what you initially expected as I believe Mr. Dawe would admit to in his early days as mayor.
So in part, good luck to both, competition is good - and the outcome either way should be for a better Aurora.
The Banner has slight bios on provincial candidates.
ReplyDeleteSlight bios? There's a witch hunt going on in Richmond hill with the paper being head witch. The way they reported that shameful lawsuit Morris pulled infuriated me. Pathetic paper.
ReplyDelete6:30
ReplyDeleteThe word " slight " was an indication that I found them inadequate. There was one amusing detail - there was identical phraseology in the material provided by Cllr Ballard to that being used by Cllr Gallo running for a different position. Same writer ?
The Advisory Committee seems unable to understand the word " No ". The majority of those impacted have expressed their negative feelings. And people outside the proposed zone are alarmed because they feel their neighbourhood might be next. I guess they would call where I live the north-west district & it has plenty of homes with great history. But I, for one, do not want anyone telling me what to do with my own place. Nor would I presume to lecture my neighbours.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete19:53
"and the outcome either way should be for a better Aurora.
I don't see how anyone can make that statement, whether serious or tongue-in-cheek.
ReplyDeleteDo you think Scotland will vote to separate from the UK in the fall?
@15:13
ReplyDeleteI think that was a placebo from someone who had been upset with the way the discussion was going. I quite enjoyed it and it served notice that the next election is not going to be an entitled walk-on.
Just saying
17:44
ReplyDeleteThat is right up there with my concerns about the Ukraine -Not.
ReplyDelete17:44
The better and more relevant question might be can we take back our own water from the Region?
Might save a bundle and not have to drink Lake Ontario dry.
To 17:44 Have you thought to ask why we are drinking Lake Ontario dry, when we have a huge resource here?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCan you remove the "This comment has been removed by a blog administrator" as all of these raise questions in a first reader's mind?
Like "What the....?"
Tidies things up, so to speak.
Destroys the evidence, so to speak.
ReplyDelete11:03
ReplyDeleteI presume you mean Your remarks.