Re: June 18, 2013 Council Agenda (Craig’s 3-18)

The pdf version of the full agenda package is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=54607

An Html version is at:

https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=54605

Items of interest:

Agenda item 7.1 Paul Leader and BobTrask, Chesley Lake Ratepayers, Beavers in Chesley Lake and Request for Financial Assistance

Is this a matter for the conservation authority?

Agenda item 8.1 EDO03-2013 Sauble Beach Wayfinding

It is not clear from the EDO report is how much taxpayers’ money is going into signs promoting private sector commercial businesses.  Commercial signs should not be paid for by property taxes.

Agenda item 8.6 JACKSON01-2013 Amabel Sauble School Capital Financing

A few months back council was deceived into believing that the Town was contractually obligated to give the school board an extra $51,000 per year for the Sauble School.

In fact the town had no such contractual obligation.

Council, agreed anyway, totally unconcerned about the fact that donating the $51,000 makes no sense and unconcerned that the $51,000 adds almost another 1% to property taxes, making almost everyone worse off.

Now there is a proposal to give the school board even more.

Once again the false claim is being made that we are “not paying our share”.

It is a false claim.  Our agreement is clear.  Before the $51,000 we were paying according to our agreement with the school board.  With the $51,000 we are paying $51,000 more than what is required by agreement.

Council should turn this new proposal down.  It, like the $51,000 grant, is contrary to the public interest.

Council should not be using tax money to distort school board decisions and to meddle in school board business.

Agenda item 8.11 CLK50-2013 Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 122-2009 Housekeeping Amendment

I took a look at some of the so-called “housekeeping” amendments.  Some are not “housekeeping” at all.  Some are major and significant changes.

It is quite dishonest to call the amendments “housekeeping”.

This may have caused residents to pay less attention than they otherwise would.

Council should recast the proposed changes as significant modifications and start the review process over again.

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