Re: December 18, 2012 Council Agenda (2-53)

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=52205

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=52203

Following are comments on a few select agenda items.
——————————————-

Agenda Item 7.1 Carl Noble, Sauble Medical Clinic

There is a covenant on the Sauble Medical Centre Property. The covenant allows only medical services on the property. No commercial activity except medical is permitted.

The property was given by the town to the Medical Clinic Corporation with the understanding that it was given for medical services to be supplied to the people, and with the understanding that the covenant would be honoured.

Many people donated to the medical centre with the understanding that their donations were for medical services to the residents.

Now Carl Noble wants council to remove the covenant.

Carl Noble wants to add commercial operations completely unrelated to medical and health services.

This is wrong. If Carl Noble wants to add commercial activities then his corporation must pay back all of the donations made to them and also pay the town for the medical centre property.

The price for the property, from the perspective of this humble member of the corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, is two million dollars.

The medical centre corporation is bankrupt. The only thing keeping the corporation from complete insolvency is that the directors keep putting more money in, in the vain hope that council will force the residents of the town to bail them out.

It won’t happen. When the medical centre corporation decides to file for bankruptcy, the town can repossess the property and the buy the building for a song.

Agenda Item 8.1 SWSRAHC4-2012 Final Report to Council

In 2010 a 70 million dollar Sauble sewage treatment system was proposed to solve a problem that was never stated, and was never defined, and in fact did not exist. Because of concerns that there was no problem identified to solve, the 70 million dollar “solution” was put on ice while an ad hoc committee determined if there was a problem to solve.

So the committee set out to determine if there was a problem, and more specifically if there was a problem requiring the $70 million dollar solution.

To determine if there was a problem, the committee hired Hutchinson Environmental to do a pollution study. The results are in the agenda package as a report from the committee.

The results are clear.

There is no pollution problem associated with septic systems.

This should kill the $70 million dollar project.

But in spite of this good outcome, there is reason to keep up the scrutiny.

The consultant said in his report:

“Our detection of the tracer caffeine in 8 of the 9 flowing drains in August and 7 of the 12 flowing drains in September show that the beach drains have been in contact with effluent from human sources (i.e. septic systems). The most probable explanation would be a shallow groundwater connection between the drains and areas where there are septic systems.”

The consultant’s statement is preposterous.

Agenda Item 8.6 MLEO30-2012 Dynamic Beach By-Law

Currently the dynamic beach by-law applies to some private property, including the dunes between fifth and sixth at Sauble.

On December 4th a by-law that would have amended the dynamic beach by-law to make it not applicable to private properties was unanimously defeated.

Now some unnamed councillor is trying to get the defeat reversed by reintroducing the amendment through the by-laws officer as a “housekeeping amendment”.

“SUBJECT: DYNAMIC BEACH BY-LAW
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the house keeping of the Dynamic Beach By-Law from MLEO 30-2012 being changes required to exempt private properties be placed on the upcoming Council agenda for consideration.”

This is unacceptable.

First the amendment is not “housekeeping” at all. It is a substantial change that would allow cars to drive on part of the beach at Sauble, at great risk to the environment and to children and adults alike.

Second, the amendment, housekeeping or otherwise, must come before council properly, not through the back door.

If some councillor has a by-law to propose, that councillor must put the change before council himself or herself. It is improper for a councillor to ask or instruct the by-laws officer to bring the amendment before council.

It is also extremely cowardly. The councillor who did this knows very well that bringing his or her motion properly before council would make him or her very unpopular with the people of Sauble Beach and with all the people of the town.

So he or she took the coward’s route and got the by-laws officer to make the proposal (and take the criticism).

“The By-law Department was contacted by a Councilor and requested that the Dynamic Beach By- Law be brought forward in a house keeping matter and to only make the changes necessary for enforcement at Sauble Beach.”

Can anyone guess the identity of the cowardly corrupt councillor?

Agenda Item 8.13 FS63-2012 BCF Funding for Sauble Sewage System

Now that the Sauble sewers project is dead, all of the costs associated with the Sauble Sewers project over the past several years are now payable. It is not clear form report FS-63 how much is owing, but it appears to be somewhere between $700,000 and $1. 2 million.

What is clear is that all taxpayers will pay.

It is also clear that much or all of the costs were completely unnecessary.

Someone must be held to account.

Craig

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s