Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLakeshore Advance, 2013-02-06, Page 6Wednesday, February 6, 2013 • Lakeshore Advance 5 opinlon www.lakeshoreadvance.com Sharen says Shafer letter has no factual basis Dear Editor, Re: Shafer Tetter In the l7 January 2013 edition Mr. Shafer opens with a personal observa- tion alleging amongst other things, "such a dis- tortion of reality?" 'this is a statement made as if it were factual. 'There is no fact to these assertions! Was the debt reduced by $4,(XX),(XX)01? Yes , it was according to the treasurer. 'therefore that *statement by the deputy mayor is correct. 'the writer should have questioned whit this council did to bring this reduction about. 'Ihe answer is the present council followed the reduction designed at the time of borrowing. 'There was no attempt to lessen the payment schedule. Therefore it is a fact that the debt was reduced by that amount. Council has the authority to lessen the payment schedule if they chose to do so. 'they wisely did not do that. A fact in the writer's rush to condemn the deputy mayor, the writer ignores the deputy mayor's continued request to find savings that could he applied to lower the debt load more. 'the next item of concern is the smaller more efficient S'I'F (Sewage Treatment Facility), which happens to be less expensive from both building and operating. 'the last time that the Build Canada representative appeared before council he stated very clearly that the grant ironies were still available. It has been stated what the costs would be at various council meetings what the costs would be to the users. 'Ihe life Cycle Reserve Fund was not included at that tinu'.'1111s is not a new phenomenon as the previous council never informed the present sewer users of Arkona,'1hedford Forest and (rand Bend that the present sewer users would Ix' levied with an increase on their users fee for the sewer. At the special council meeting held at the lxga(y (:entre in'Ihedford the consultant presented the cost to the users of the sewer systems at a very low figure of about $26.(X) per year. It was only after questioning by those Mr. Shafer denigrated in his earlier letter to the editor that the consultant stated that he (the consultant) had left out some of the Life Cycle Reserve bund in his calculation. Further questioning of the consultant elicited from him that he, the consultant had left that entire life Cycle Reserve Fund allocation out of the equation. Incidentally the allocation is just shy of $1,(XX),(XX).0O iwr year for 20 years. '1 his changed the actual cost to more like $ 360.00 per year increase to the aforementioned users. 'Ihe difference in operational costs would be a reduction of Life Cycle Reserve Ikind to between $450,(X)0.0 to $ 5(X),00(100. 'the costs estimated for ()MI to run the ST1: was about $60,0(X).0) less. "New Direction" means different things to (different ixeople. What does it mean to the person that used that statement in the media release, l have no way of knowing. 'therefore 1 will not try to explain it. i can say that every council has a different approach or new direction from its predecessors. 'Ihe legal cost of Mr. Byrne leaving the employ of lAunbton Shores will be reflected in the overall legal costs. 'this will Ix' disclosed to the public when they are received. 'this was the statement made by Mayor Weber at the 14 January 2013 meeting. 'Ihe deputy mayor can share her views via any media she wishes. Why does, Mr. Shafer question the use Of West Shore Media? West Shore Media has done the people of 1 AIInbton Shores a great service at no cost to Direction, direction, who knows the new direction? 41t., ar Editor, 'There are approxintately 90 weeks before the next election. Some members of the 1,aInhton Shores Council have again and again claimed that John Byrne was fired because they wanted to I1moVt' in is "new direction': is it coincidence, that once the councillor from Ward 4 resigned and the balance of power shifted to those who had championed "transparency and "good governance;' that the CA() was summarily dis- inissed? Although some, but not all, council- lors were elected on a platform of "transpar- ency" and "go(xl governance" these attributes did not seem to be demnonstrated in this affair. (It has to be pointed out that the ratepayers do not know if the vote to dismiss the CA() was unanimous or not because of the "in camera" nleeting).'Ihe ratepayers have yet to hear (offi- cially) any reason other than he was dismissed because there was a desire to move in a "new (lir'CtIOli:'lhe dismissal seems to have been somewhat opaque (not "transparent") and thus it seems like questionable "good govern- ance':111e dismissal illustrates an inconsistency between the action of sumo council members and their stated political values.'Ihis inconsistency is troubling.' (here- fore the voters justifiable want to know what on earth the "Tew direction" is going to be. 'Ihe "old direction" 1Aunbton Shores had been travelling in was characterized by over $6O, (XX),(XX).(X) in various grants, the build up of reserves, the welcome replacement of aging infrastructure, award winning projects and initiatives like "Blue Flag': "Communities in 13looni" along with community fund raising for projects such as "'rhe Shores", the "Legacy Centre" and (rand Bend Beach, all while piling up several consecutive year's ranking as one of the lowest taxed municipalities in Ontario (as far as the BMA study of municipalities under 20, (XX) population demonstrates). Does it make sense that the community wanted to make a turn to a "new dhe'ction"???? What then does the present Council mean by the term "a new direction"? What do they believe is their mandate? At the January 14th council meeting the mayor seemingly could not explain the "new direction" as a policy, platform or operating procedure. However the the municipality by placing the unabridged proce'e'dings of council meetings on the Inter- net for anyone to view. 'Ihe only continents regarding any election are coming from you and yout group. Why? It is too soon early according to your group's earlier stance to begin electioneering. What is different now? 'the question of speaking with potential can dilates for the ward 4 seat is ludicrous. Why would a conscientious elector or in this case a council number not want to have knowledge of the person they might support or not. No one could make an informed decision from a very short speech made at the selection portion of the council meeting. It is surprising that it well-educated person like yourself would question council's collec- tive honesty by your inference, "I'm just trying to keep them honest': Actually the published procedure was followed. 'there are no protocol disallowing council members to anything less than an ordinary elector has the right to (1o. I have attended most council meetings for the last three years till I was ill. At no time was there such a disgraceful exhibition of disre- spect for the mayor and council. 'there are many appropriate avenues to express displeasure with council action. 'they can be very pointed but respet'tful.'this is the way that we should try to present different opinions. When discussing the issues raised in your Tetters a wise person mused about your fellow teachers that are still actively in the class room being confronted with this tyix' of behaviour from their students concerned about the lack of extra curricular activities. I hasten to point out that the teachers have a valid concerti with the present government lest anyone think Deputy -Mayor explained that the "endorsees.. had really run seeking a mandate to take 1mbton Shores in a "new direction" claiming that voters must have desired a "new direction" because they choose this council. Yt's, they did choose a council but (1i11 not give it a mandate to move in a "new direction': She failed to explain why the:"endorses" maylnal candidate lost his bid for council and also why many "endorsees" who ran for council did not win (all of whom ran on the platform of "transpar- ency and good governance"). Nor was it mentioned that the total number of votes cast indicate that the majority of voters did not vote for a "new direction': It is true that a minority of "endorsees" were successful but in most cases only by small pluralities. it was a game try by the Deputy -Mayor to explain the "new direction" but the evidence does not seem to support her contention that the voters wanted a Council with a new mandate. Why (toes the Deputy Mayor not seem to understand or accept this fact'? Democracy implies that the majority rules. 'the majority of the ratepayers have leen left feeling that this council needs to let then( know if the otherwise. One can only assume that you wool(' support and applaud the actions of students in the aforementioned scenario. 'lb do otherwise sets two standards. For you to condone such behaviour speaks volumes. 1 will add my personal observation to clarify any attempt to misinterpret my words. When the disruptions were occurring I looked around at the gallery to see who were so upset. It was reassuring to see those on all sides of the situa- tion that refrained from this type of behaviour. l aur proud that 1 saw many that I alight disagree with on 111111 issue behaving with the proper dl'('Ortllll. )isrespect of any ix'rson should never be tolerated. It is the ultimate in bullying. Your continent re "suck it up" is uncalled for. You am correct about muzzling any opposi- tion.'Ihat however needs to be qualified by adding the adjective "appropriate dissent from" before those who disagree. Anything else will result in anarchy. Many of the items toward the end of your dissertation have no factual basis and are sim- ply statements without any knowledge of the protocol required. Eric, you are a better person than your better presents. You care. You have served the com- munity of Forst for many years. Perhaps 111 the lx'St intt'1't'St of our re'litively new community of l,iunhton Shores you alight agree to sit down with two or three of your like minded associates with an equal number of opposite views and discuss our differences in a civil nlannrr without casting aspersions. Respectfully submitted R.M. (Bob) Sharen "111'%%' direction" is ill fact it different ditectil)I1 1101)1 the one for which they voted, one So dif- ferent that it necessitated the firing oI the (:A( 1. Will this Council ever formulate and inform the ratepayers what they mean by a "new direc- tion" so that they can judge whether or not they are being sold a hill of goods'? Will the majority of the Voters get whit they really vote/( for or something else? Ratepayers need to keep ask- ing for a clear definition of this "new direction': 'Ihe ratepayers of 1.81111)101) Shores (in the name of I )enlocracy) deserve an answer. Respectfully Yours Eric Shafer Forest inline Iakeshoreadvance.com Got all of your news, sports and (1)011. Sorving Grand Bond and surrounding area