I chaired the general committee meeting last night.
A couple of contradictions were corrected.
The agenda of the in-camera meeting prior to the Committee meeting listing acquisition of Yonge Street property, was not the same acquisition of property listed in the agenda of the in-camera meeting held after the general committee meeting.
In fact, the first acquisition was not even Yonge Street properties. Apparently I missed a second brown envelope containing the agenda of the Special Council meeting held to authorize the first in-camera meeting to happen.
And apparently the meeting was not held to authorize acquisition of properties that are not really on Yonge Street.
What we did was authorize staff to keep tabs on something cooking between the Province and the post-secondary academic community.
That's all I can tell you about that .
The 107 page report , on the cockamamie heritage theme park , aka by me as a real estate scam ,that was first item of the agenda of the general committee meeting .was received for information, to be dealt with at a general committee meeting a month from now.
Dismay was noted by some Councillors about how authority was conveyed for this work to be done
and the report presented.
No doubt all well be revealed.
But the word is, Council is not on the edge of parting with massive chunks out of the Hydro Asset Reserve Fund to convey to a couple of property-owners for creation of a Heritage theme park.
The report should be at the Library for anyone who wants to read it.
It's called the Hillary-McIntyre Park Cost Benefit Study ..Report CAO 14-001
Wednesday 15 January 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Sounds like an excellent meeting - too bad it wasn't streamed live. We were all set up with a bottle of wine. Instead I did a washing. Sigh.
A call to the adult information desk at the APL confirms there is no paper copy of report CA0-14-001, nor do they know when to expect one.
It is available as a .pdf attachment to the GC agenda of January 14th and may be easier to digest in this format, the direct link is here:
http://www.town.aurora.on.ca/app/wa/mediaEntry?mediaEntryId=62365
Happy Reading!
I seem to recall when the possibility of live streaming GC and Committee meetings was first discussed. There was a cost factor involved that was under $10,000.
When I was quite young it was drummed into my head that anything worth doing was worth doing well.
Why can Council not get this simple message drummed into its collective head with a staff roll in excess of 200 people?
Last night's GC meeting was not streamed, dead or alive. Can someone not test the system several hours before commencement time and if there is a problem fix it?
And while on the subject of communication, the town's web site isn;t worth a damn!!!
If you try and search for something you never find it or you get a pile of old crap meetings from years ago.
How can you people consider spending multi-millions of dollars when you can't even provide the most rudimentary communications capabilities to taxpayers, who, by the way, pay you. Sometimes I think you should PAY US!!!!!
Everyone in my neighbourhood is moving branches out to the edge of their properties. /We do not need a waste collection at the end of the month. We need it now. Instead there is an electronic drop-off this weekend. We can do that too. It's called multi-tasking.
Just read the CA0-14-001…Ah…We paid for this report? Sham,scam, rip-off, shell game. How’s that for a summary?
To those that are complaining about live streaming or the lack of live streaming.
There is an interesting alternative.... drive over to Town Hall and watch it live.
If it's worth watching, it's worth watching well.
I read with interest in the Auroran about how badly Aurora needed to do the Heritage purchase & all the reasons that the opportunity should not be missed. The proponent was not one of the property owners. It was our own head of staff. Can't recall ever voting for the man who I don't think even lives in Aurora. I, on the other hand, am very familiar with the properties in question, one of which has been rejected by the market for about 2 decades.
Post a Comment