copy7

November 24^th 2004
Musings about this week's Cobourg Council meeting:

Such a to do about a leafy lane leading from a dark street. Brook Rd South is one of the darkest streets in Town due to its rural and idyllic nature. At 34 Brook Rd. there exists a lane that only locals know about. This lane is a left over from the good old days of local planning where the Town, in its own mind, tried to follow the long-established idea of grid planning - roads and streets that follow North/South and East/West road patterns. To that end Councils of yore (at least up to the 1993 Council) used to accumulate land as part of severance deals. The accumulated land would then become future roads and sit as road allowances until needed. Such was the existence of the lane at 34 Brook Road South.

Until a developer came to Town, bought a big house in a private road and then decided to set about making money. He eyed the large, but landlocked lots on Brook Rd South. Many people have tried to work these lands into a plan but Councils usually persuaded them that planning conditions were not right to do what the developer wanted. But Mr Developer, being a persistent fellow drew up a plan of subdivision and in this plan included the Town's land in his calculations. Negotiations with the Town reached an advanced state and then he made his plans public - thank the Lord for mandatory public meetings! When the plan reached the full glare of the public more than a few people cried, "Hold it, that's our land that you want to build on." The Council was in a tizzy. Realising that they could not satisfy both sides finally, on Monday night, decided on a compromise. After releasing the decision of Council, reached in a closed session, the Mayor told the public, "In a compromise nobody gets what they want" What the public got was a redrawn lane way, 20 metres wide at one end reducing to 6 metres for a while further reducing to 3 metres and then opening up to 12 metres at the other end. A most peculiar way to redraw what was once a straight line.

"Nobody got what they wanted" - Not true, the developer might not have got what he wanted but he got most of it and the redrawn lane way certainly begs more question than answers. The questions I would have had as a councilor are:

More people left the Council chamber angry and bemused on Monday night. Angry because their elected representatives sat as mute as the three wise monkeys during the presentation of their concerns and bemused because those same representatives refused to discuss the issue they came to Council to discuss. Ms Donna Todd came with a bunch of supporters to tell Council that she wanted some action taken about the insurance claims dealing with her house flooding. The supporters came to see what Council would say to Ms Todd.

Ms Todd has been the victim of two floods in the past four years. In 2000 the flooding washed out her basement and damaged the house foundation. That is an undebatable fact. What caused the damage is open to question. What is known is that the house was built on an old garbage dump that was once a stone quarry. Ms Todd alleges that the flood in 2000 washed out some of the fill in the old quarry because the storm water runoff was not managed properly. The collapse of the fill caused the basement slab to lose support and crack and now the northwest corner of her basement is now four inches lower than the rest of the room. This flood damage was in the hands of the insurance adjusters (hers and the Town's) when the flood of 2004 arrived. A major part of the 2000 flood was the procedure used at the time, by the Town, to cope with the heavy seasonal rain. The sewer system was 'backwashed' several times over a period of seven days. This caused flooding through the sewer backup and exacerbated the original damage.

When the flood of 2004 arrived it came in the form of mixed effluent. It should be mentioned that Water St still has a system of combined sanitary and storm sewers - one pipe. When it rains heavily the pipe becomes overloaded and mixture of rain and sewage backs into the houses on the south side of Water St.

So what we have now is a person who owns a house that is worthless and finds that insurance companies are not willing to pay to fix it. Also we have a Town administration that admits that the procedures used in 2000 damaged the house. But we also have the Town insurer claiming that the damage was caused by "heavy seasonal rain" and that the Town's infrastructure is "adequate". To be fair Ms Todd's insurer is willing to pay for the damage done in 2004 but wants assurances that it won't happen again. The Town says that its system is adequate but still the houses flood out in heavy rains so that assurance cannot be counted on.

The bottom line is this; the Town admits responsibility for the 2000 flooding but the Town's insurer refuses to pay for repairs. The Town says that the infrastructure on Water St. is adequate but it floods the houses in times of heavy rain and Ms Todd still cannot get the damage done to her basement in 2000 fixed.

Anybody know a good contingency lawyer?

It will be interesting now that Town councilors are not bound by the gag order imposed by the insurance company, because on Monday night, without warning Councilor MacDonald introduced a motion supporting the insurance company's denial of the 2000 claim, to see just who will speak for Ms Todd as she expects; because after all they have been elected to represent her interests!

Notes from a local correspondent about Local Democracy - the topic could not have been commented upon better.
"I was at Monday's council and heard the Mayor give the message that all matters dealing with Town property are always dealt with in closed session. They have had a number of Town property matters recently and have dealt with them in closed session, however, before it can become official the matter has to come to open Regular Council for voting.

Based on Monday's council I think there is still a problem. For instance:

1. Under Item XII By Laws, General Government Services Items 1 & 2:
The Council gave 1st, 2nd and 3rd readings to two bylaws to purchase land from Mutual Development Corporation and to sell some land to them. At no time during all three readings of the by-laws did any member of the Council explain what the parcels of land were or why they were being bought and sold. Nor were the by-laws read out, not even once. All we saw were a hands of Councillors shooting up in the air to approve the bylaws. No discussion, no explanation to the public what was going on, nor why the council had agreed to this. If the Municipal Act requires three readings of a bylaw surely they should be read out, explained and a reason given for the Council to vote in favour. I am not arguing against the approval of these by-laws since none of the public at the council meeting , nor the TV viewers had any idea what was going on. What I am asking for is some semblance of democracy whereby we, the public and citizens of the town, are given an explanation of what is being done in our name.

2. Under Item XII By Laws, Public Works Services Item 2, A Bylaw to close a portion of the First Street Road Allowance.
Earlier in the meeting a letter from Miriam Mutton was read out by the Town Clerk. The letter was clear and questioned why a road allowance would be closed, and apparently also sold, when it was part of a view corridor between King Street and Lake Ontario mandated under the Town Plan . This time the Council Coordinator did acknowledge the letter, but said the Town was doing it anyway. No discussion, no explanations, just a forest of hands voting in favour.

3. Adjournment.
At the adjournment the Mayor announced the Council would be having a closed meeting to discuss the Brook Road laneway. He then came out to tell the remaining public and press that the Council had agreed to a compromise to sell part of the laneway.

The problems are:
The meeting was supposed to be about a public proposal to retain the laneway as a scenic walkway, so under what rule was the meeting held in secret ? If the council discussed selling the laneway: Were was the prior public proposal to sell it? Where was the study giving reasons and appraising the value of the land to be sold? When was the laneway put up publicly for tender to be sold? When were the tenders opened? How much will the Town sell the land for ?

If this matter goes to the next Council meeting for approval of a by-law all the above questions must be answered. We do not want to see just another forest of Councillors' hands with no explanations.

There were also problems with the Mayor and Councillor McCaughey coming out to announce the "compromise". Why did the Town feel the need to compromise? The land is owned by us, the citizens, what compelling reason did the council have to consider selling it?

The Mayor showed us a piece of paper showing a plan of the lots to be sold off, but would not say who prepared the plan. The plan was dated 17 November 2004 so clearly it was not drawn up in last night's secret meeting, but had been about since Wednesday of last week.

Councillor McCaughey refused to discuss these details, but said he had a more important meeting to go to. Councillor McCaughey is the Coordinator for Development Services, so what could be more important than explaining to a group of concerned citizens what had been discussed about their laneway proposal and why the Town wants to sell it.

In all, it was a bad day for openness and democracy. The Council may believe it is following the right "procedures" but from the perspective of an outside observer the Town is making no effort to explain or justify its actions to citizens."

Still shaken up? Like the results? Just how are getting over the election of George Bush? Just move on! But here is a comment from Brian Reade of the "Daily Mirror" (the left side) and on the other side of the political spectrum here is Rush Limbaugh (the right side)