Lakeshore Advance, 2013-01-16, Page 7..t T 7-,z
6 Lakeshore Advance • Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Lambton Shores councilor seeks police protection
CONTINUED FROM > PAGE 1
Bonesteel said the people who attended were dis-
ruptive. It was suggested maybe their by-law officer
could stand by their meetings. Deputy mayor Eliza-
beth Davis- Dagg asked if Bonesteel felt this was going
to be an on-going issue, " do you see controversy as
something that will continue?" she asked. Bonesteel
answered, "'this is a business meeting and if it takes
the presence of the OPP to make this happen we
should do that." 1 le said for "$80-100 they should do
this': ('the cost for duty police is $60 per hour with a
four- hour minimum.)
i le added that tx'ople have an opportunity to make
comments at the end of the meetings. (The public
may only ask for clarification of agenda items at the
end of the meeting- they may not continent as per By-
law 37-2(112.) Bonesteel said the December 17th
meeting was a disgrace to the municipality and that
the mayor should have cleared the room.
In the past two years windmill controversy, cell
phone tower protests, sewer meetings all had sante or
higher levels of public interest with the difference
being at this meeting the derision was stressed against
different council members.
Davis-Dagg said the December 17th meeting was
out of control and people should be waned and this
issue needs to be seriously addressed. She thought
the police officer would be strong treatment for order
and decorum. Bonesteel asked if they wanted to risk
the safety of the council.
Councilor Martin Underwood said there was no
violence inside the walls of council 1 le said maybe
having a police is overkill-- "but maybe not:' 1 le felt
that they should snake it clear disruptive galleries
won't be tolerated.
In the end, this concern of Scotts- that would have
The Municipality of tam
LIVING IN LAMBTON SHORES...
A weekly Update on the Municipal Events in your Community
Administration Department - 7883 Amtelecom Parkway, Forest, Ontario NON 1J0
Tel: 1-877-786-2335, 519-786-2335, Fax, 519-786-2135, Email. administrations@Iambtonshores ca
Visit our Web Site at www.Iambtonshores.ca
Property Assessment Notice
- Taxation Years 2013 to 2016
Property Owners should have received their new Property
Assessment Notice from the Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation (MPAC) in the last couple of weeks.
The Municipality has scheduled two (2) days for property owners to
meet with MPAC if they would like to discuss their property
assessment value. The 2 dates scheduled are: Thursday,
January 24/13 at the Grand Bend Municipal Office (lower level) from
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Thursday, January 31113 at the Shores
Complex In Forest (lower level meeting room) from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m.
An APPOINTMENT IS NECESSARY to meet with a representative
from MPAC. To schedule an appointment, the property owner Is
required to call MPAC directly at 1-866-2964722. You must
indicate that you are calling to setup an appointment and for
which location/date. Please bring your assessment notice to the
appointment.
Lambton Shores'
Residents
PLEASE NOTE:
lite next
budget meeting
t\ I►I be e
11 it INSDAY,
,):liiwiry 3 1st
at 1:00 p.111
Ali meeting!, ,rr,` ,tt the
1 hotilorti \ Ctt7lrplci
Committee of Adjustment ... The Lambton Shores Committee of Adjustment will be
considering the following matters at the Thursday, January 24, 2013, meeting.
7:05 p.m. - Steve Seddon, Agent for Tanya Krantz - A-02/2013 Minor Variance - Plan 24, S. Pt. Lot
198, 15 Elmwood Ave., Grand Bond
7:05 p.m. - David Gllcrest, Architect, Agent for Anglican Church- A-0112013 Minor Variance- Plan 3,
Lot 5 & Pt. Lots 3 & 4, RP 25R8664 Part 1, 20 Main Street, South, Forest
Full copies of the notices for these applications are available on the Municipal Website or can be obtained
by calling the Forest office at 786-2335 or 1-877-786-2335.
The meetings are held at the Thedford Village Complex, comer of Main and Pearl Streets, Thedford
Economic Development Committee
The Municipality of Lambton Shores Is seeking individuals interested in serving on the Economic Development
Committee to assist in discussions and research geared to business retention and expansion, and to encourage
opportunities for employment growth In Lambton Shores and to make recommendations to Council on Economic
Development Issues.
Council is seeking 6 people who will represent key groups in the community, such as tourism, agriculture, youth,
business, seniors, and ensure wide geographic coverage, and with experience In either economic development,
marketing, information technology, sociology and/or municipal processes.
If you are interested In participating, application forms aro available on the municipal website.
www.lambtonshores.ca/local government/ Council. Application forms aro also available by contacting any ono of the
Municipal Office.
Submission details are available on the form, and applications are to be submitted by February 13, 2013
r -
Council member Lone Scott
been an emergent issue at the next meet-
ing was lost. Mayor Hill Weber said, -11e
safely of every council member and the
public in general is very important to me.
It is unfortunate that in the past two and
a half years we have seen many verbal
attacks on individuals which have been
inappropriate. The most recent distur-
bances are no different.
i will do my best to maintain proper
decorum during council meetings. As
Mayor I have no jurisdiction over discus-
sions in the parking lot. 'Thick skin and
broad shoulders are requirements in
politics:'
In the question segment of Thursday's
meeting' 1 herdfortl resident Sheila' Thomp-
son told council the residents need to
voice their opinions and that is why they
ani' coming to the metings. "People need
the opportunity to speak, they want to be
heard and if they are not happy with what
you are doing, they want more of a say."
She suggested maybe they have special
meetings so people can speak out.
Bob Shaven, (rand Bend was sched-
uled to delegate with council Monday
regarding public conduct (regarding the
Dec. 17th meeting) and Wayne Edlington
from Forest was also scheduled to speak
alx)ut questions regarding the dismissal of
the CAO.
Open letter to MP Bev Shipley: F-35 jet
You are being overly modest (lake -
shore Advance, tan. 2, 2013).
What you characterize as "a good deal
of discussion" about the purchase of the
F-35 jet, is in fact an unmitigated military
pn)cumntent and PR disaster for the
I lailx'r government.
You and your government have lung
ridiculed critics who had exprvs ed con-
cerns alx)ut the choice and cost of the
F-35. Opposition MPs were accused by
your government of being uninformed,
anti -militaristic and even unpatriotic.
Casting doubt, and worse, on the Par-
liamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page
and Auditor (eneral Michael Ferguson
besntitched the reputation of two fine,
neutral supervisors of Parliament's han-
dling of our money.
Your unequivocal assertion that "we
have not spent a single tx'nny to acquits
new fighter plane's" ignores the $335, (XX),
lex) that ('au oda has already contributed
towards the tvsearch and development of
the }.-35 as per the Memorandum of
Understanding (M(RJ), 2(xxi. Uwe con-
tinue with the M011, Canada's share of
R&D will be at least $550 million. 'that's
not getting us a single jet, only an oppor-
tunity to he able to buy.
Furthermore, the MOI1 arrangements
with Canadian industry are only valid if
Canada stays in the MOIJ framework and
buys the F-35. Hence all "significant
industrial benefits" have to be re -negoti-
ated with another plane maker if the 1:-35
is not selected.
It is a fact that Defence Minister Peter
MacKay stated on Feb. 25, 2011 that, "if
this procurement is cancelled....so
another competition can l)e held, it will
cost taxpayers $1 1)111i0n:' Is this how
nnuch has leen spent in the first place on
the decision to buy the 1:-35?
In July, 2010 Public Works Minister
Ambrose and Peter MacKay declared that
a full review of all options had been
made, stealth technology was indispen-
sable and that the F-35 was the ONLY
fighter that fit the air force's needs.
Now the "reset button" is pushed
without any acknowledgement that the
sole -source prx'urene'nt and withering
denigration of critics by your government
blinded all government MPs to what
proper steps ought to have lx'en taken.
Why didn't you and the I lamer govern-
ment follow the "seven -step plan" before
"this good deal of discussion" took place?
No matter how the I larger government
twists and turns, what is inescapable is
that the government had invested all of
their support in the purchase ()Idle F-35.
In the face of unrelenting revelations by
KPMG and others, you are now contra-
dicting statements made earlier by Minis-
ters MacKay, Ambrose and Clement.
in fact, at the time of the federal 2011
election the 1 larper government knew
that the $9 billion %vies not a realistic cost,
but chose.' to gloss over; if not outright lie,
about the increased cost.
Using a 42 year life -cycle cost, is a weak
attempt to bring down the average cost
per plane.'Ihese planes will not last 42
years.
Food for thought for all Canadian citi-
zens: "'lb operate the F -35 11.S. Vice
Admiral David Venlet, F-35 programme
chief, has described as rendering his
(American) customers weak in the
knees:
And by -the -way, your cheap -shot criti-
cism of the (:BC is like comparing apples
and oranges. You could just as well com-
pare the $461)1111011 cost of the F-35 to the
cost of all the media advertising and poll-
ing done for the I larger government.
I low alxnit giving us transparency about
those figures as we'll?
Sincerely yours,
Peter Stanojevic