In my commentary 3-28 about free parking I asked everyone to send a protest to Bowman, Close, Klages, Turner,with copies to the rest of council.
I provided e-mail addresses from the town website. Apparently some were out of date.
Here is an updated list:
paulwmckenzie@bmts.com
jackson4saublebeach@gmail.com
kklages@bmts.com
jaybeck@bellnet.ca
cthomasbroker@gmail.com
matt.sixtwenty@gmail.com
m.bowman@sympatico.ca
jet@bmts.com
Craig
TSBP residents have seen a 45 per cent increase in property taxes over the last 8 years.
Now Bowman wants to raise taxes even more, by eliminating pay parking at the beach.
This would increase the property tax burden by $250,000 to $350,000 dollars, an increase of three to four percent.
This would be unacceptable. Council should be reducing taxes, not raising them.
This past year pay parking revenues were $238,000. Costs were $34,000. That’s $204,000 net revenue into the town coffers. That’s $204,000 paying for municipal services.
If parking is made free that revenue is lost and has to be made up with an increase in TSBP property taxes.
And if parking is free we get more tourists. And that means the taxpayers will have to pay more cleanup costs and policing costs.
Total cost to TSBP taxpayers of the free parking proposal will be $250,000 to $350,000 per year.
And for this increase in taxes we the residents of TSBP get ….. more tourists.
The motion to drop parking fees from $15 per day to zero was made by Bowman. Then Close, Turner, Klages, and Bowman voted to put free parking in the draft budget. (Councillors Jackson, Standen, and McKenzie voted against free parking.)
The budget has not yet passed. It can be changed.
Please, TSBP residents, send an e-mail to Bowman, Close, Klages, and Turner (with copy to all other council members).
Contact council members at:
John.Close@southbrucepeninsula.com
paulwmckenzie@bmts.com
Jim.Turner@southbrucepeninsula.com
Marilyn.Bowman@southbrucepeninsula.com
jackson4saublebeach@gmail.com
christhomas@royallepage.ca
kklages@bmts.com
jaybeck@bellnet.ca
cthomasbroker@gmail.com
matt.sixtwenty@gmail.com
m.bowman@sympatico.ca
jet@bmts.com
Please tell them that many in TSBP will be seriously harmed by the free parking proposal.
Please tell them that many in TSBP will be seriously harmed by a three to four per cent tax increase. Please tell them that except for what is needed for legitimate municipal services, we are entitled to keep our money.
Please tell them that we don’t want another three to four percent tax increase. Tell them we need a significant decrease instead.
It appears that Bowman is trying to use taxpayers’ money to buy the chamber of commerce vote in the October 27, 2014 election. Don’t let her get away with it.
Craig Gammie
The OSST August 20 article “South Bruce Peninsula Council Critic Not Allowed At Municipal Meetings” was fair and reasonably unbiased, but it missed some key information.
On November 20, 2012 I was banned from town hall. On November 28th I applied to the court to quash the ban. On May 23rd Judge Conlan recommended I abandon my application in favour of an out-of-court discussion process in which the town would decide whether to keep the resolution as is, or drop the resolution, or “vary” the resolution somewhere between “drop” and “keep”. I consented on the conditions that the ban be mostly lifted during the discussions, and that council hear my submissions by the end of July, and that council provide a written decision with reasons within 30 days of my oral submission, and that if I did not like the council decision or council’s reasons for its decision, I could bring the matter right back to court and once again ask the court to quash.
Council heard my submissions, and council varied the resolution, but instead of varying between “drop” and “keep as is”, council expanded and extended the ban.
I applied to the court again to have the resolution quashed.
On August 20 administrator Jacquie Farrow-Lawrence handed me a report that gave the decision to ban me and “reasons” for the decision. The report is on my website at craiggammie.com.
But council did not see the report, and so could not have vetted or approved or “provided”, as was required by the court order of May 23rd, the “reasons”. Council breached the court order.
Because the reasons are almost verbatim from John Close’s sworn affidavits of December 18 and December 20, which were not shared with council, I know that the “reasons” are not council’s but are, rather, John Close’s.
The reasons that John Close provided for banning me were:
1. That I secretly and intentionally recorded two closed sessions,
2. That I exhibited a pattern of questionable behavior, and,
3. That I failed to demonstrate remorse for my questionable behavior and that I failed to understand “why [my] past behavior has been questionable”.
The first allegation (secretly and intentionally recorded) is false. There is clear and ample evidence that both recordings were accidental rather than intentional. I never even had possession of the recordings. And on July 24th I resolved the problem of accidental recordings by committing not to ever bring a recorder to any council meeting.
The second allegation (questionable behavior) is too nebulous to have any meaning, but in its implied meaning of unlawful or even bad behavior is false.
John Close’s examples of my “questionable behavior” include these allegations: bringing offensive and defamatory signs into council chambers; threatening Mike McMillan (twice); criminally assaulting Mark Wunderlich; intimidating and harassing staff; and, threatening the Clerk. Not included in the August 20 “examples”, but included in his affidavit of December 20 and also in his e-mails and witness statements, is the very serious allegation that I have been practicing engineering without a license.
The August 20 allegations and the engineering-without-a-license allegation are false, and are unsupportable, and have not been “questioned” in any legitimate court, and are unproven in any court, and have not been proven anywhere else. (My rebuttals to all of John Close’s false allegations are in my submission to the court of February 7, which is on my website.)
All of John Close’s “questionable behavior” allegations are malicious and vexations, made not for any proper purpose (such as preventing accidental recordings), but rather to complement John Close’s campaign to stop me (and by example others) from participating in our democratic public policy process, and to stop me (and others) from criticizing his actions.
John Close’s reason number three for banning me (I failed to show remorse) is just plain absurd. Real judges may consider remorse during a sentencing phase, after (and only after) the accused has been properly and fairly tried, and has been found guilty. No sensible person expects an accused person to feel remorse for any act that they have not committed and for any act for which there is no charge and no finding of guilt. The accusations against me are no more than allegations. No court of competent jurisdiction has even considered whether I have committed any offense.
John Close’s inclusion of “demonstrated no remorse or understanding” makes it clear that he believes that he, as mayor, is the supreme, competent, omniscient, omnipotent, infallible, and fully authorized judge of all things in TSBP (and everywhere else).
“Mayor Supreme” is delusional. “Mayor Supreme” is unfit for office.
And in banning me, Mayor Supreme has already cost the taxpayers about $20,000 in legal fees, and will cost in my estimate at least another $25,000.
John Close’s campaign has not just been against me. He has also made false allegations against John Schnurr, Rick Lyttle, and Orma Lyttle, and against three as yet unidentified bloggers (via what was ostensibly Rhonda Cook’s $700,000 lawsuit), and against committee members who dared to speak up, and against many others.
So far John Close’s campaign against me has been a very serious inconvenience, but the harm to me has been small compared to the damages to others, many of whose physical and financial health have suffered.
And the general taxpayers have suffered. In my estimate, much of the 2012 legal budget excess ($120,000) and much of the 2013 budget increase ($400,000) are for improper contributions to John Close’s personal campaign against his perceived opponents.
In his press releases and interviews of February 4 and May 24, 2011 John Close alleged that his opponents were “criminals”, and vowed to bring them to justice. The allegations were unfounded, but the vow remained.
It has to stop. It is not fair to the taxpayers. And it is not right.
Craig Gammie
TSBP
Agenda item 8.14 CLK84-2013 Town Rights on Lake Beds
Spring of 2010 or earlier access to Oliphant beaches discussion started, with residents raising concerns about unrestricted vehicular access, and other issues.
Sometime in 2011 posts were installed to restrict access.
In the September 18, 2012 Council meeting Councillor Turner made a report recommending that the posts be removed. In the report he indicated:
“Information provided by the OPP indicates that the town may hold liability should an accident result from the placement of posts, rocks and trenches.”
and
“This opinion is echoed by our town insurer.”
But when asked to provide evidence of this “information” from the OPP and the “information” from the “town’s insurer”, Mr. Turner could not. Mr. Turner claimed that the correspondence was only oral. I doubt that there was any such correspondence at all.
Also in the September 18, 2012 council meeting, Councillor Turner and Councillor McKenzie claimed that there was a petition to remove the posts signed by many Oliphant residents. But when asked to produce the signed petition for inspections and validity checks, Councillors Turner and McKenzie would not. I believe that the petition was invalid, if it even ever existed.
In spite of the misinformation presented to council, council resolved to remove the posts and the posts were removed and cars were once again on the beach with no restrictions.
In the August 6, 2013 council meeting concerns were again raised about cars on the Oliphant beach, and general lack of control, and council was asked to take action.
The clerk’s report CLK84-2013, in the August 20, 2013 agenda, is the response to the request for council action.
But instead of action, the Clerk’s report is a blueprint for inaction. The excuses for the inaction are the lamest I have heard yet.
Clerk report “Point 1” says:
“Perhaps the most important point is the fact that there is a land claim on the Lake Bed. As a general rule and in all other facets of governance, we do not make changes to the land nor do we give approval for others to make changes to lands which are subject to land claim ..”
Rubbish: The posts were put in while there were two relevant land claims. The posts were removed while there were two land claims. These were “changes”. To say that “we do not make changes to the land nor do we give approval for others to make changes to lands which are subject to land claim” is pure hypocrisy. It’s also ridiculous. Council’s role is to govern. You cannot let land claims halt the process of governance unless the courts say you must. And the courts, to my knowledge have not said that.
Clerk report Point 2 says:
The MNR has informed staff that ambulatory or riparian rights extend to those properties which border on bodies of water. ……. Our solicitor has indicated that the riparian rights are not automatic and that a deed must indicate that the property boundaries are subject to water level changes in order for the riparian rights to be established. As such, a title search of all shoreline properties would be required to establish the existence of riparian rights.
A reporting of what the MNR may have told staff and what the town’s solicitor may have indicated is totally useless hearsay. I do not believe that the MNR said what the Clerk says the MNR said. And the town’s solicitor has no credibility. Council and the public need to see a written report from the MNR and a written report from the solicitor so that council and the public can determine whether the Clerk is reporting accurately and so that council and the public can provide rebuttal arguments as warranted and necessary.
Until we see and review those reports, the clerk’s statements should be taken as unreliable.
Clerk report Point 3 says:
A survey would be required to establish property boundaries should riparian rights be established. In order for there to be rules and regulations established, it would be prudent to have boundaries within which the rules would be enforced. A survey would be a huge undertaking and would be subject to the results of the tile searches.
Riparian rights are not the issue. Riparian rights is a red herring. The issues are whether the Oliphant beach is in the geographical boundaries of the town of south bruce peninsula, and whether the TSBP has jurisdiction to govern the beach. And until someone demonstrates otherwise, the answers are “yes” and “yes”.
Clerk report Point 4 says:
With the current bylaw enforcement compliment, it would be very difficult to establish further beach areas which would require patrol and enforcement.
I believe the clerk is suggesting, by implication, that we should not make by-laws, no matter how necessary, if we haven’t got the staff to enforce them.
This is a ridiculous suggestion. By-laws should be made to protect the public interest. Patrol would be nice, but a by-law can be very effective without it. If there is an infraction citizens can call the by-laws officer, or call the police, or lay charges themselves.
And even if we had none of these enforcement avenues, the by-laws, and the access restrictions, and the signage would go a long way towards correcting the problems.
Insufficient by-laws officers is not a valid reason for inaction.
In her report the clerk presents two options.
Option 1 is to begin talks with Saugeen Ojibway First Nations, establish whether we have ownership and if we do proceed accordingly. This is a good thing to do sometime, but it is unnecessary for addressing the current concerns. And it’s already being done. And it would be a very lengthy and expensive process. It might be better expressed as the “delay option”.
Option 2 is to maintain the status quo. This would be unacceptable.
But the real problem with the Clerk’s report is that it omits an obvious third option, which is to put the posts and other control features back in to restrict vehicle access and to make an Oliphant dynamic beach bylaw to protect the public and the environment. In other words, manage the shore lands per the residents’ recommendation of August 6.
Agenda item 7.2 Bruce Peninsula Health Services Foundation, Richard Bouillon and Helen Thomson-Cancer Centre Priority Needs and Request for Funding Support
Like many requests for funding from the treasury, this one is for a very noble cause.
But the rule is that donations to charitable and similar organizations must be private decisions. The rule is that council should not be deciding that private citizens will donate, through property taxes, to charity, or to the hospitals. Such granting is Ultra Vires council’s authority.
Health care is provincial. Health care is provincially funded. The Health Services Foundation should be asking Bruce Walker (MPP), not council, for assistance.
Besides, there is some false information in the request.
The request for funding indicates:
The Ministry of Health does not fund routine capital expenditures and does not even recognize capital depreciation as a cost to the hospital.
This is false. The ministry absolutely does fund capital expenditures. It does not however fund every request. And if the ministry funds capital expenditures, that automatically recognizes depreciation.
The request for funding also implies that the town’s donation of $300,000 will boost the local economy. This is likely false. Taking another $300,000 out of the pockets of the residents is unlikely to boost the local economy, and could make it worse.
It is unfortunate, but council must decline the request.
Instead of granting the request Council should recommend that the delegation take their campaign directly to the residents, so that those residents who are in a position to support this noble cause, and who wish to support the noble cause, can do so of their own free will. Council members should feel free to contribute (their own money), and should feel free to encourage residents to donate.
I hereby pledge $50.
Agenda item 8.17 Bowman08-2013 Long Term Energy Plan
The Bowman report indicates:
“Bruce Power is requesting letters of support for Bruce Power’s continued role of 6,300 MW or 8 units.”
This is not a huge issue as Bruce Power is not asking for taxpayers’ money. But there’s a principle at stake.
Energy generation and transmission are provincial issues. Energy generation and transmission are not council issues. Council has no business taking a stand on energy or Nuclear Energy or Bruce Power as if it was the stand of the people of the TSBP. No wonder council can’t govern the town. They’re too busy pretending they are the voice of the people on all issues, in all forums. They’re too busy pretending to be Bill Walker and Larry Miller. Council members don’t understand what they were elected to do.
Council should decline the request for support.
——————————————————————————
The pdf version of the full August 6 agenda package is at:
https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=55402
An Html version is at:
https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=55400
Craig
Item 7.4 on the August 6 council agenda reads:
7.4 4:30 pm Eric Davis, Miller Thomson-Resolution R-793-2012 (this delegation will be heard in Closed Session)
Item 4.4 reads:
4.4 Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board AND Advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose (Resolution R-793-2012)
On November 20, 2012 I was banned from town hall by resolution 793. I immediately applied to the courts to have the resolution quashed.
In court on May 23 I agreed to withdraw the application-to-quash conditional upon a court order: that council holds a special meeting to hear my submissions on the ban; that council decides whether to revoke the ban; that council provides reasons for their decisions; that the ban is suspended until the preceding conditions are met.
The special meeting was held July 24th.
In the special meeting I demonstrated that the ban made no sense and I recommended that council revoke the ban.
I also demonstrated to council that John Close had recognized that the grounds for the ban were so weak that quashing of the by-law by the courts was inevitable. I also submitted evidence that in desperation to save resolution 793 and keep me away from town hall John Close made up a pile of lies about me and submitted them to the court as council’s position, but without council approval and without council knowledge.
John Close’s false allegations, which but for one were submitted to the court as council’s (false) allegations, included:
that I illegally offered professional engineering services
that I twice willfully and secretly attempted to record closed session;
that I flaunting a council warning,
that I harassed female staff,
that I threatened female staff,
that I intimidated female staff,
that I assaulted Mark Wunderlich,
that I assaulted Mike McMillan,
that I disrupted meetings with signs,
that I defamed staff by uttering false and harmful allegations on the blog ,
and that I generally all kinds of bad, bad things.
At the July 24th meeting I suggested that for John Close to have submitted his pack of lies to the court as if it were council’s position was both misconduct and a breach of trust.
I also submitted to council that John Close’s shenanigans and his pack of lies and his desperate attempt to shut out anyone whom he considers an opponent has cost the taxpayers dearly.
I also made clear to council that any further attempts to present John Close’s pack of lies as council’s position will cost the taxpayer’s much, much more, and that councillors have a duty to put an end to John Close’s misconduct and breaches of trust.
So what was John Close’s reaction?
John Close has brought in Eric Davis, Miller Thompson Lawyer from Waterloo, to the closed session of August 6, to talk about resolution 793, the resolution that banned me from council, the resolution that was suspended by court order, and the application that was withdrawn, and that is no longer before the courts, and that is no longer a legal matter.
Bringing in lawyer Davis is another unjustifiable $6000 hit to the pockets of the taxpayers. Just to fight John Close’s personal battles.
John Close is confiscating the hard-earned money that belongs to the residents of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula and is using it to fight his private war against his perceived opponents.
The resolution 793 issue is not the first time that John Close has raided the treasury to fight his perceived opponents.
What about the 2012 $700,000 defamation lawsuit against John Shnurr, Rick Lyttle, Orma Lyttle and me? All this time we (me included) incorrectly characterized that lawsuit as Rhonda Cook’s personal vendetta. But while it had Rhonda’s name on it, it turns out that it was not Rhonda Cook’s initiative at all. Contrary to appearances, it was really John Close’s vendetta against his perceived opponents. And it was all paid for by taxpayers. And taxpayers are still paying. Unnecessarily. First of all the lawsuit never should have been made. It was groundless and frivolous and vexatious from the start. And it never would have been made if council had not committed to paying Rhonda’s legal fees and also any settlement against her. And second the counterclaim against Rhonda Cook and the related claim against the town for champerty and maintenance could have, in my view, been settled long ago at very low cost to the taxpayers.
Regarding the champerty and maintenance lawsuit, there were settlement offers made, but the offers never even got to council. Council was not even made aware of the offers. It appears to me that John Close and his confederates, and not council, made the decision not to even consider the offers.
But when you think about it, the reason council never heard about the settlement offers is crystal clear.
John Close is using the treasury for his personal war against his opponents, in that case John Schnurr. So John’s war is costing John Close nothing. Why would he tell council about a settlement offer? If council knew of a settlement offer council might actually decide to settle, and that would end the matter. And that would be to John Close’s personal disadvantage. (And to the disadvantage of John’s lawyer buddies”.) So council were not told. And council did not know. And the battle continues, and the legal bills keep piling up. And the burden on the taxpayers has gone through the roof. All so John Close can try to silence one of his perceived opponents.
More recently John Close inappropriately used the people’s money to hire a lawyer to give me notice to stay off John Close’s Red Bay property. It is fair and legal for John Close to give me such notice. And I will heed the notice. But it is wrong and unacceptable for John Close to pay the lawyers with taxpayers’ money. If John Close wants me to stay off his property that’s a personal matter, and John Close should and must pay the lawyer himself.
And then when I protested to council about John Close using taxpayers’ money to pay a lawyer for dealing with a clearly private matter, John paid that same lawyer, once again using treasury funds, to threaten me with some sort of lawsuit if I ever tried again to protest to council about John Close using taxpayers’ money to pay that same lawyer for dealing with that clearly private matter.
I did not, of course, stop corresponding with council, or with John Close. And every time I protested to council, the lawyer just kept repeating the threat. The lawyer’s threats turned out to be nothing but stupid, arrogant, pompous, bombastic puffery. But the real issue is that the puffery and this little part of John Close’s personal war against his perceived opponents has without justification cost the taxpayers a big pile of money. At least $10,000. And counting. And because I cannot be threatened into not corresponding with council, there will likely be even more costs.
There is more. Legal costs were about $120,000 over budget in 2012. In my estimate, much of the extra was to fight John Close’s personal battles against his perceived opponents.
The legal budget in 2013 is four hundred thousand dollars higher than the 2012 legal budget. Again, in my estimate, much of the budget increase is to fight John Close’s personal battles against his perceived opponents.
It has to stop. It is not fair to the taxpayer’s. And it is not right. Where is the rest of council? Where are the elected representatives? Where are the people whose duty it is to make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen?
What are they doing about this pillaging of the treasury?
Craig
August 6 agenda item 8.3 reads:
AIR02-2013 Request for Funding to Prepare a Business Plan and Strategic Plan for the Airport
The related Agenda item 11.1 reads:
CLK75-2013 Transport Canada Airport Report
In item 8.3 Dwight Burley, chair of the joint airport committee, is asking for money for a business plan and a strategic plan for the Wiarton-Keppel Airport.
The request should be denied. It is premature to do either a business plan and a strategic plan.
Instead council needs to make a decision on whether the Town of South Bruce Peninsula should even be involved in the airport.
And the alternatives considered must include shutting the airport down, and refusing to sink any more taxpayers’ money into it.
Agenda item 11.1 is on the agenda as a “matter of urgency”. It appears that Transport Canada did an inspection, found some problems related to runway condition and lighting, and called for a corrective action plan by August 30, 2013. Not clear in the report is that failure to come up with a corrective action plan acceptable to Transport Canada could result in loss of the current level of certification, and possibly some activity constraints.
The airport board and staff in both municipalities and some council members are trying to create a crisis here. They are trying to use their manufactured crisis to get both councils to make a hasty decision, without proper discussion or decision process, and without proper consultation with the residents of the Town whose wallets are being eyed so greedily.
The airport board and staff have tried to use the crisis to con council and the people into believing that there are only two alternatives, those being:
1) direct the airport board to prepare a corrective action plan including cost estimates and budget for repairs in a future year, and,
2), direct the airport board to prepare a corrective action plan and immediately move forward with repairs.
The problem with the report is that it misses at least two very important alternatives, being 3) do nothing and let the certification lapse, constraining activity as necessary, and 4) sell our share to private investors or to Georgian Bluffs.
Shutting the airport down is not even mentioned in the staff report. It is as if staff and some council have already made the decision, and to hell with the residents who will pay the costs.
Shutting the airport down and selling it must be considered as alternatives. And they must be seriously considered. Not having these on the list of alternatives is a scam and an insult to the people of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.
(This has the appearance of another John Close airport scam. Remember back in 2012 our crafty mayor tried to give our share of the airport to Georgian Bluffs and get from Georgian Bluffs in return only some property that we already owned.)
Either of the staff options will cost the taxpayers a fortune. And will keep on soaking up $290,000 deficits out of the taxpayers’ pockets.
That’s $145,000 per municipality. That adds 2 per cent to our property tax hit.
And gives nothing to the taxpayers in return.
Council should make the airport decision very carefully, without unwarranted haste. And the decision should be made for the residents of the municipalities, not for the members of the airport board or for the small group of people who privately benefit from continued operation of the airport, and who privately benefit from the continued subsidization of the airport by the residents of both municipalities. The decision must be made using a proper, logical, open, and transparent decision process.
And council should tell the crisis manipulators that if the choice is between making the decision fast and making the decision right, it will be made right.
——————————————————————————
The pdf version of the full August 6 agenda package is at:
https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=55158
An Html version is at:
https://southbrucepeninsula.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=55156
Craig
I found only one item of concern in the July 16 agenda, but the concern is huge.
On the agenda as item 10.1 for first, second, and third reading is a property standards by-law.
There may be some property standards problems in TSBP. Corrective action may be required. A property standards by-law may be the proper measure. But not the one drafted and in the agenda.
The by-law requires that all properties in TSBP meet much of the current building code, regardless of whether the current code was in effect when a place was built. The building code doesn’t even require old buildings to be upgraded to meet the current code. The by-law is overly-prescriptive.
And while some provisions in the draft by-law seem sensible, many of the provisions are simply ridiculous.
Here are some of the sillier provisions in the draft by-law, just from a cursory reading.
3.4.3 All windows capable of being opened and all exterior doors shall have
hardware so as to be capable of being locked or otherwise secured from inside
the building.
3.8.3 Every roof drain shall discharge onto the ground at least 1 metre (39 inches) from the building or structure, when it is physically possible to do so, providing that it does not adversely affect adjacent properties, or cause erosion.
4.3.2 Where a floor covering has become worn ….. so that it retains dirt …….., the floor covering shall be repaired or replaced.
4.3.4 Every cellar and basement shall have a floor of concrete or other material
acceptable under the provisions of the Building Code, to ensure water drainage
and to guard against the entry of vermin.
4.7.1 Every residential dwelling shall have heating equipment capable of maintaining a temperature of 22°Celsius (72°Fahrenheit) from September 1st to June 15th as per Section 9.33 3.1 of the Ontario Building Code.
4.14.1 Every plumbing fixture in every building shall discharge the water, liquids or sewage into drainage piping, which shall be connected to a municipal sewage
system, or a system approved by the authority having jurisdiction and in
accordance with all applicable law.
5.1.6 The minimum area of a bedroom in a dwelling unit used as a bedroom by two or more persons shall be 4.6 square meters (50 square feet) for each person for multi occupancy.
7.1.1 Vacant land shall be graded, filled or otherwise drained so as to prevent
recurrent ponding of water.
There may be a need for a property standards by-law. But not this ridiculous intrusion into people’s past private decisions. My guess is that many or even most properties in TSBP would fail to meet the proposed standard. Many or most dwellings built as cottages many years ago will fail, not because they are a problem or because they are unsafe, but just because they are cottages.
Some of these standards may be valid for new construction, but there must be some grandfathering of places built in a different time, and approved at that time.
And new construction standards should be enforced through the building code, not a property standards by-law.
The bylaw needs to be sent back to staff for major repair. Actually the situation should be sent back.
The whole exercise should start with a problem definition.
What problem exists or what potential problem could arise such that we are in need of a corrective or preventive measure?
And then go through finding the best solution.
What are the alternative means of addressing the problems and potential problems (including a property standards by-law as one alternative)?
What is the best means?
And if the means chosen is a by-law, the next question is what is a proper by-law.
I would also like to know, from council, whether a lawyer from Millar Thompson was involved in this debacle. Miller Thompson lawyers should not be involved. They are way overpriced to start with. And they cater to their self-interests and the interests of a few of their contacts rather than the interests of the residents. They will always draft by-laws that will give them more work.
People should be aware of the penalties for contravention of the by-law.
The penalties are in section 8.4:
8.4 Non-Compliance
8.4.1 The owner of any property which does not conform to the standards as set out in this by-law shall repair and/or maintain said property to comply with the
standards or the property shall be cleared of all buildings, structures, waste or
refuse and left in a leveled and graded condition.
8.4.2 Where any person fails to comply with an order issued, the municipality may cause the required work to be done at the cost of the person. The cost of such work may be recovered by i n v o i c e , action or by adding the costs to the tax roll and collecting the said costs in the same manner as property taxes.
So if your kids’ bedroom in the old 1950 built cottage is only 98 square feet and you cannot afford to pay for the renovation you could literally lose your home.
Or if your heating equipment can’t maintain 22 degrees on that cold January day you could lose your home (and then really be out in the cold).
How is this by-law in the public interest?
I know that the by-law started with good intentions, but it has gone out-of-control. It needs to be fixed.
Craig Gammie
The annual report of the Ontario Ombudsman’s Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET) lists complaints received about closed meetings, and also violations found and best practices suggested.
An excerpt from the report of October 2011 is in the table below:
MUNICIPALITY Complaints received Violations found Best practices suggested
TSBP 3 6 0
Town of Midland 2 7 2
TOTAL 128 45 34
Six of 45 Ontario “violations” of the open meeting provisions of the Municipal Act found by the Ombudsman were “violations” committed by council of the Town of South Bruce Penninsula. The Ombudsman found that council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula broke the law with respect to closed meetings six times. That’s 13.3 per cent of all the violations found by the Ombudsman.
TSBP council had six “violations”, TSBO council had 13.3 per cent of the “violations”, and TSBP council was second only to Midland in number of “violations” (Midland had 7). Hardly a good record.
All 6 violations were connected to a complaint made March 31, 2011. As required by law, the Ombudsman reported to the town about the March 31, 2011 complaint, in a letter dated July 19, 2011.
So with six violations of the law, the July 19, 2011 report from the Ombudsman to the town about the six “violations” must have been clear, unambiguous, direct, and strong.
Right?
Wrong.
The July 19, 2011 report from the Ombudsman about the meetings in which the 6 “violations” occurred does not even mention the word “violations”. In fact it implies that there were no “violations”. A few of the violations were described as actions which “should have” been done differently, but the language is couched so as to mean “maybe should have” been done differently. And in the report most of the violations of the law were described as actions which merely “could have” been done differently.
And in the associated Clerk’s report to council there is no indication of any “violations” of the law either. And the discussion of the issue in the August 2, 2011 council meeting was “we got a clean bill of health”.
In that meeting John Close even said, falsely, that:
“This was not an investigation; it was a report.”
This is incredible. Almost four months of investigation and six violations of the law found and John Close says there was “no investigation”?
The July 19, 2011 Ombudsman’s report is in complete contradiction to the OMLET report.
There is only one plausible explanation for this contradiction. Systemic bias. The Ombudsman’s office and the Ombudsman’s Open Meetings Law Enforcement Team I believe are steering clear of enforcing the law against TSBP council because they have a biased view that the council could not possibly be wrong.
(I would call it “political interference” instead of, or in addition to, “systematic bias”, but then I would have to admit that “political interference” is a bit speculative at this time, and that “political interference” is based only on my unsubstantiated belief that John Close is an active member of the Ontario Liberal party, that being the party whose leader at the time, in a clear act of “political interference”, stole $600 million of taxpayers’ money to buy out a gas-plant contract for the sole purpose of getting a Liberal win in a 2012 Mississauga by-election.)
So in the July 19, 2011 report the Ombudsman swept right under the carpet the six TSBP violations of the very law which the Ombudsman’s gang claims to enforce.
Regardless of the reason why the six violations were swept under the carpet, the fact remains that the Ombusman and his office swept them all under the carpet, and as a result the Ombusman and his office now have absolutely no credibility. No credibility whatsoever. On July 19, 2011, (or earlier), the Ombudsman’s office became a complete joke.
And TSBP council, then emboldened by the Ombudsman’s report, just laughed and carried on violating the law, just as they had done before.
Why anyone would even contact the totally useless and possibly corrupt Ombudsman’s office after the 2011 fiasco is beyond me, but someone obviously was concerned enough about TSBP council’s continuing violations of the Municipal Act to give the complaint-to-the-Ombudsman’s-office process another try.
Another complaint to the Ombudsman’s office, this time about several 2012 closed meetings and one 2013 closed meeting, was filed with the Ombudsman on February 1, 2013.
It turned out to be a waste of effort. The Ombudsman’s spring 2013 investigation was completely incompetent, the analysis biased and wrong.
The first flaw in the investigation was that the investigator looked at only closed minutes and only spoke to John Close and Angie Cathrae about what had been said and what had been discussed in closed session. No other council members were interviewed. So the investigator got only John Close’s and Angie Cathrae’s views of things. Very biased views.
And so the investigator got it wrong.
The investigator said on page 2 of her July 19, 2103 letter:
“The closed meeting records showed that, in all cases, the subject matter discussed in closed session focused on one or more active or potential lawsuits in which the town and/or staff acting on behalf of the town are named as respondents.”
The investigator was saying that the closed meeting minutes showed that only cases where the town or staff were named as respondents were discussed in closed.
If the meeting minutes actually do say that then they are false. Cases in which neither the town nor staff were named as “respondents” were in fact discussed. Several cases. And the investigator, Yvonne Heggie, was told of this before the investigation even started. And the investigator was told that to know with any certainty whether cases in which neither the town nor staff were named as “respondents” were in fact discussed in closed, she would have to look beyond the minutes and interview people (who were at the closed meetings) beyond just Cathrae and Close.
But the investigator ignored that advice, turned a blind eye to the facts, and as a result “found” no violations.
So the investigator, having no credibility as a result of the 2011 investigation fiasco, made her credibility and that of her office even worse by investigating the February 1, 2013 complaint completely blindfolded and wearing hearing protectors.
The investigator also made several other significant errors in her investigation and analysis. These are being put into a request to the Ombudsman for reconsideration of the July 19, 2013 report. (I will circulate the request for reconsideration when it becomes available).
On his website, the Ombudsman bills himself as “Ontario’s Watchdog”. What a joke. Blind and deaf. Sees only what he wants to see, and hears only what he wants to hear. Some “watchdog”.
Councillor Kirkland was very smug about the Ombudsman’s reports.
In an interview with Owen Sound Sun Times reporter Rob Gowan, [http://www.saublesewer.com/Documents/20130610%20Ombudsman%20Letter.pdf]
Kirkland is quoted as follows:
“We have had the ombudsman review us in the past,” said Kirkland. “We are one of the only municipalities that have had the scrutiny of what is going on. It is nice to know you are doing things right and have that reconfirmed and we can carry on.”
Memo to Kirkland:
There were six violations found in the first investigation, Mr. Kirkland. The Ombudsman did not say you were doing things right in the past. And the investigation in 2013 was conducted blindfolded and biased. You are not doing things right now either. You were and are still violating the law.
Councillor Kirkland wants to just carry on violating the law, just as they have violated the law in the past.
Councillor Kirkland and all the other council members who are feeling so smug about getting away with the violations of the law should be aware that while they may have fooled the incompetent, zero-credibility, badly-biased Ombudsman on the issue of closed meeting violations, they haven’t fooled the engaged voters. Not one bit.
October 2014 can’t come soon enough.
I should note that Councillor Bowman appears to have picked up on the fact that council had violated the law regarding the earlier June 2011 Ombudsman’s report. But as far as I can see all others condoned the “we passed” scam. If any councillor does not or did not support the scam, they should say so.
Craig Gammie
TSBP taxes are up at least twenty per cent in the three years that John Close has been mayor. The increase is not all due to Mr. Close’s shenanigans, but much of it is.
Some of the increase is a direct result of Mr. Close dipping his greedy little hands into the treasury to pay for his personal legal expenses. Some of the increase is for paying personal legal expenses of others, which Mr. Close supports. Some is due to giveaways to the Chambers, which Mr. Close supported. And charging all TSBP residents to fix the Oliphant water plant, and giving $60,000 more each year to the Sauble school than required by our agreement, etc, etc.
Now Mr. Close wants to be Bruce County Warden.
http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=58130
I guess he wants to see how much damage he can do there.
Watch your Bruce County taxes go through the roof.
And hang on to your wallets.
Craig Gammie
It was hard to tell from item 5.2 in the May 15, 2012 Council Agenda, titled “Public Meeting Notice-Restructuring, Georgian Bluffs and South Bruce Peninsula”, but the proposal was not really about “restructuring” at all. The item was about John Close’s proposal to give away our share of the Wiarton Keppel airport.
The one page report included in the May 15, 2012 agenda package indicated only one clue:
“The Town of South Bruce Peninsula has also consented to the transfer of their 50% ownership in the Wiarton-Keppel International Airport to the Township of Georgian Bluffs”.
In fact the Town consented to no such thing. It was John Close’s proposal to give away our half of the airport in return for ownership of the Wiarton Sewage lagoons and a cemetery.
At the public meeting in shallow lake on Wednesday May 29th, 2012 Ana Vukovic pointed out to John Close and everyone else that we, meaning the people of TSBP, already own the lagoon lands and the cemetery that Georgian Bluffs is willing to give to TSBP in trade for half of an airport.
John Close admitted that yes we do already own the lagoon lands and the cemetery. He could not explain why he would have made the ridiculous proposal of giving up our half of the airport and getting in return something that we already own. Nor could anyone else explain. In fact several TSBP councillors were very embarrassed at learning the truth. Several were embarrassed at being scammed by John Close.
With the spring 2012 exposure of John Close’s foolishness, the whole idea of giving our share of the airport away to Georgian Bluffs seemed to go silent.
Now the foolishness is back.
In the July 2, 2013 TSBP council agenda package is a report by Clerk Cathrae asking council to make a commitment regarding the airport.
Cathrae’s report talks about an “apparent” Transport Canada June 20 inspection which “apparently” found deficiencies requiring $4 million in upgrades. But there is no Transport Canada report available to check whether any of this is true. It’s all speculation.
But the big lie in Cathrae’s report is that the Township of Georgian Bluffs, which owns half of the airport, has asked TSBP to make a decision on the $4 million, or at least on our $2 million “half”.
The Cathrae report says:
“Georgian Bluffs feels that we must give some type of answer to Transport Canada before July 22, 2013 in order to secure the future of the Airport. It is worried that without a financial commitment and a plan to fix the deficiencies, the Airport may be closed. This leads to the question that Council must ask itself; do we wish to find the funding and what will be our role in the future of the Airport.”
It may appear on the surface that Georgian Bluffs is putting pressure on TSBP to come up with a $2 million money commitment. But the pressure is not coming from Georgian Bluffs council at all. The pressure is coming from Dwight Burley, who is deputy mayor of Georgian Bluffs. Dwight Burley is not Georgian Bluffs.
Until TSBP gets the so-called Transport Canada report, this item should not even be on the agenda. The only reason Cathrae put it on the agenda is because Burley wants to pressure TSBP council.
Burley should not control council’s agenda. And Dwight Burley’s personal views should not be taken as those of Georgian Bluffs. And Ms. Cathrae should not be putting Dwight Burley’s requests on council’s agenda.
Ms. Cathrae presents three options, which contain much rubbish and misinformation.
Ms. Cathrae’s option a) is:
Make a Financial Commitment to the Airport: … The Town’s
share of costs could be $2 million.
This option should not even be considered. It is a bad idea to keep the airport open even if there were no $4 million costs facing.
Ms. Cathrae’s option b) is:
….Council may wish to wait for the report from Transport Canada before they make any commitment. It should be noted that Georgian Bluffs will be awaiting a response from South Bruce Peninsula in this regard so that the Accountable Executive can report to Transport Canada prior to the issuing of the inspection report. There is no written direction stating that a response is required prior to the issuance of the report; the Airport Manager feels that we would be acting proactively. If Council chooses to wait for the report, when the report is received, a decision will be required. There exists a liability with respect to owning an asset and Council should be aware of their responsibilities with regard to the liability which exists by being a joint owner of the Airport. Regardless of the findings on the report, we have been told that repairs will be required and a monetary commitment will be required at some point.
Obviously council must “wait for the report from Transport Canada before they make any commitment”.
But the rest is all rubbish. It is false that “Georgian Bluffs will be awaiting a response.” Cathrae even states that Georgian Bluff’s has not asked in writing for TSBP’s position. There is no official request from Georgian Bluffs. It is Dwight Burley pushing for a response and Dwight Burley is not Georgian Bluffs.
It is also false that a decision will be required. Council has no authority to commit 2 million dollars. So the default decision at this point is not to commit 2 million dollars. Council has in effect already made that decision. Council is free to discuss other alternatives, but council should not be pressured by Burley or anyone else in Georgian Bluffs to make a change to its decision.
Ms. Cathrae says “There exists a liability with respect to owning an asset ..”
But she does not say what that responsibility is. This is irresponsible. Council should note that owning half the asset is not an obligation to throw 2 million dollars into it. Council can and should say “enough of this nonsense – pay for it yourself or shut it down”.
The worst rubbish of all is Ms. Cathrae saying:
“Regardless of the findings on the report, we have been told that repairs will be required and a monetary commitment will be required at some point.”
That’s misleading and dishonest.
Ms. Cathrae says “we have been told”, but she neglects to mention that the person who has “told us” is Dwight Burley, who has no authority and absolutely no say in what the residents of TSBP are required to do. In addition, Mr. Burley is completely unreliable, and incompetent, and should be ignored.
Why would Ms. Cathrae put “we have been told” in her report as if it was relevant when it is not?
The alternative to keeping the airport open is obviously to close the airport. So contrary to Ms. Cathrea, doing repairs may be an alternative that some may still find worth considering, but it is not a requirement. And contrary to Ms. Cathrae, a monetary commitment may be an alternative some may still find worth considering, but again it is not a requirement.
Ms. Cathrae’s option c) is:
Make a Decision on Airport Ownership: Ultimately, Council will need to decide if they wish to remain as owners of the Airport and if Council does wish to remain owners, there will need to be some decision on the future management and capital commitment. If Council chooses not to remain part owners of the Airport, forward movement to transfer the ownership would be in order.
The “forward movement to transfer the ownership would be in order” of Option C is just another attempt by John Close to give our half of the airport to Georgian Bluffs. He’s using Ms. Cathrae as his talking puppet, but it’s the same strategy that was exposed and shot down by Ana Vukovic and others in May of 2012. His stupid scam was fully exposed. Why is it coming up again?
Council should not be considering just “transferring the ownership”.
Instead of transferring the ownership (giving our half away) we may wish to purchase Georgian Bluff’s half, or both sell to a third party, or we may wish to sell (not give away) our half to Georgian Bluffs, or maybe both may want to hang on to the (closed) airport for a while.
Or if Georgian Bluffs wants to pay all the costs we may want to keep our share.
But there is no reason to give our share away.
The airport is a loser. It sucks up money from the taxpayers. It provides absolutely no benefit to the town (meaning the corporation). Council needs to end the drain on the treasury.
Council should say to Georgian Bluffs:
1) no more capital; no 2 million
2) we will no longer finance deficits; you finance the deficit or shut it down
3) you can buy our share for $x million (x is at least)
4) or we can discuss sitting on it as joint owners
5) or we can discuss selling it
Craig
 | cgammie on Costs of Plover Trials Are on… |
 | Pissed at You on Costs of Plover Trials Are on… |
 | John Schnurr on Another million or two if Mayo… |
 | David Dobson on TSBP bylaw 46-2020 – Iss… |
 | John on TSBP bylaw 46-2020 – Iss… |
Craig Gammie's Commentary 