Just $25 a year gives you access to a wealth of information: water quality, local news, activities, businesses, a voice on local issues and much more...
I am very disappointed that you published the most recent response on your website without first contacting me to clarify my position. You have missed my point entirely. I did not "question the rationale for the repeal of By-law No. 95-9" because I certainly realize its limitations. It had to be updated. By-law No. 2011-24 is much more complete and more in line with the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001.
What I am objecting to is Section 6.3 in the new By-law 2011-24.
If you read the Section closely, you will recognize that Council has the authority to sell any township property to an abutting landowner without making it available to the public at large. Mr. Fifield in his response understood my concern. The Clerk-Administrator also understands my concern. He is preparing a rewording for Section 6.3 that may make it more palatable for the ratepayers of McKellar Township. Unfortunately, the other two posted respondents did not seem to understand my concern.
I also understand the Code of Conduct because I was the author. It is a very unfortunate circumstance that the preamble to your article is so incorrect and therefore misleading. I am fully aware of the content of the Township of McKellar's by-laws. However, your preamble would suggest that I was not aware of the differences in the two by-laws and the need for revision, when I wrote my article.
Obviously, I would appreciate a further correction to your article which correctly states my intent. However, that is totally your prerogative. Unfortunately, because of the situation that has now been created and expressed, purposely or not, I will no longer forward any future correspondence to the MLCA.
I still believe that your "News" section on the MLCA website has a purpose. However, I think that every precaution must be taken before something that is so misleading is published. You are actually committing the error that I am so concerned about.
Too often, this Council has created new by-laws (e.g. Recreation and Facilities Committee, Sale of Municipally Owned Real Property, Fees & Charges) without submitting them to the proper oversight. Then they have to amend or repeal them shortly thereafter. It is very confusing for the public to know which by-laws are in effect and their correct wordings. It also appears to be a major waste of staff time.
Thank you for your time and I hope all is well. David Moore
MLCA strives to be objective and unbiased. Unfortunately, the Association has become a sidebar to this story. When faced with such a situation, it is wise to avoid the temptation to justify one's position and simply accept criticism graciously. Phil Boyd, Vice-President, MLCA
Letter from Adam Moyles
I am clearly late debating this issue to the township, but felt the need to inquire. I do frequent the township's website weekly and just observed the notice for the sale of "part" of Block O, Plan 203. My property abuts Block O, Plan 203, and was looking for information regarding if it's known if it is the entire Block is part of the sale, or just the part the abuts the purchasing party's property. In the articles and notes that I have read, my assumption is that it is the land abutting their property.
Now, in saying this, if I recall correctly, the entire Block O Plan 203 was petitioned by the abutting landowners in an attempt to purchase the land, however, the previous council did not want it sold as the area was deemed an environmentally protected marshland, and they wanted to maintain ownership. Now it obviously looks as though they care not about the past. I do know the landowners in question, and have no doubt that the fact of maintaining environmentally sensitivity is also a main concern of theirs.
A transaction using this method and in this fashion sets up very scary precedent for other town owned land, that the council may seem "surplus" in the near future. I have already watched a very sketchy sale of publicly used waterfront town land in the same area of Maplewood, and have no doubt, that if the township can get its hands on some money, or an opportunity to raise someone's taxes, they will do it. It is an extremely poor and sketchy way of doing business and most definitely is not in the best interest of the taxpayers.
Thank you for your time, and providing us with the information and a forum for our inquires and comments.
What I am objecting to is Section 6.3 in the new By-law 2011-24.
If you read the Section closely, you will recognize that Council has the authority to sell any township property to an abutting landowner without making it available to the public at large. Mr. Fifield in his response understood my concern. The Clerk-Administrator also understands my concern. He is preparing a rewording for Section 6.3 that may make it more palatable for the ratepayers of McKellar Township. Unfortunately, the other two posted respondents did not seem to understand my concern.
I also understand the Code of Conduct because I was the author. It is a very unfortunate circumstance that the preamble to your article is so incorrect and therefore misleading. I am fully aware of the content of the Township of McKellar's by-laws. However, your preamble would suggest that I was not aware of the differences in the two by-laws and the need for revision, when I wrote my article.
Obviously, I would appreciate a further correction to your article which correctly states my intent. However, that is totally your prerogative. Unfortunately, because of the situation that has now been created and expressed, purposely or not, I will no longer forward any future correspondence to the MLCA.
I still believe that your "News" section on the MLCA website has a purpose. However, I think that every precaution must be taken before something that is so misleading is published. You are actually committing the error that I am so concerned about.
Too often, this Council has created new by-laws (e.g. Recreation and Facilities Committee, Sale of Municipally Owned Real Property, Fees & Charges) without submitting them to the proper oversight. Then they have to amend or repeal them shortly thereafter. It is very confusing for the public to know which by-laws are in effect and their correct wordings. It also appears to be a major waste of staff time.
Thank you for your time and I hope all is well. David Moore
Now, in saying this, if I recall correctly, the entire Block O Plan 203 was petitioned by the abutting landowners in an attempt to purchase the land, however, the previous council did not want it sold as the area was deemed an environmentally protected marshland, and they wanted to maintain ownership. Now it obviously looks as though they care not about the past. I do know the landowners in question, and have no doubt that the fact of maintaining environmentally sensitivity is also a main concern of theirs.
A transaction using this method and in this fashion sets up very scary precedent for other town owned land, that the council may seem "surplus" in the near future. I have already watched a very sketchy sale of publicly used waterfront town land in the same area of Maplewood, and have no doubt, that if the township can get its hands on some money, or an opportunity to raise someone's taxes, they will do it. It is an extremely poor and sketchy way of doing business and most definitely is not in the best interest of the taxpayers.