|
|
|||
|
Council debate on HPD open letter Di Ianni: 'There's one communications item that requires disposition by council, namely 5.4, by adding a request that this communication be received only. And it's correspondence from Michael Desnoyers and Jack Santa-Barbara, Hamiltonians for Progressive Development, respecting expansion of the urban boundary and a request for council to reconsider its decision. The recommendation that this be received. Moved. Seconded. On this communication, councillor McHattie, then I'll recognize the other speakers as well." McHattie: "Just on that item, Mr Mayor, we've just received. It's clear to me that council's not necessarily going to change their position on that issue, the aerotropolis issue, but I think one of the . questions that group is asking is that the process by which we'll discuss the issue in the future and have the public involved in the decision as it goes forward. So I'd like to suggest that we reply to that group and provide them with the opportunity to meet with perhaps yourself, Mr Mayor. And maybe they already have, but maybe a second meeting. I'd certainly like to be involved in a meeting to talk about the process going forward, so that they can feel - apart from council agreeing to step away from the aerotropolis - that they understand what the process is and there's opportunity for public input. So rather than just receiving it, I'd like to provide that direction that we meet with the group and I'd certainly like to be part of that." Di Ianni: "Certainly, we can certainly arrange that. I do have a number of speakers. Councillor Samson?. Samson: "Yes your worship, with regard to 5.1 and the" interrupted by Di Ianni: "We're on 5.4. We'll go back to 5.1. ." Goes to Braden: "Mr Mayor I do think it would be a good idea to engage this particular group. I think that leaving it here and not answering it, whether or not it was a letter or whatever the format was, I think we really want to do better than that. So I think if we follow councillor McHattie's position, I think that would be a good one. I just want to say that there's a thing that I think, and it certainly bothers me, and perhaps it could be dealt with .in this exchange if we pursue this. In the debate we heard that - I'll just make this quick - that there would not be a burden in any way on the tax levy. And the idea was that this is going to be levy free - separate from probable use of development charges. Then I heard, sir, you - and please correct me if I'm wrong - but at the end of the debate I think you're words were something like this isn't going to cost us anything but we have to live up to our responsibilities. And I'm not sure, and perhaps you can help us out with that. A few days later there was an article in one of the, well the daily newspaper, and I think it was insinuating, sir, that you had said well it's not going to cost $100 million, but it's going to cost something, so we're in. I think the fact that we seem to be somewhat all over the map about this, sends a bad message. So I think that we as a corporation need to be clear whether or not there are financial implications, that are reasonable or unreasonable, so we can clear the air. I have a particular opinion, but my opinion is not so important. But I think the varying messages are something that we have to put an end to we need to speak with a single voice, and I think for that we need staff to generate some numbers." Di Ianni: "I can answer that . this is a correspondence item so we'd have to have debate on that under new business. But you've made your point, and indeed consistency of message is very important. [turns toward staff] Do you want to address the reason for a response or not response so far? Then I have councillor Bratina as well. Tim McCabe [Director of Real Estate and Development]: "To answer your question on this matter, there are two points here. The first, because it is a referral to the Ontario Municipal Board, we're under litigation. This letter was received a month after the appeal for the litigation started at that point. The letter as drafted didn't really ask for a response. There was the . of a position. And they set their position, and we set our position based on council's decision and we're going to have to take it from there." Di Ianni: "We can certainly meet about process. That's not a problem. I'll undertake to arrange that. [At this point the mayor noted the presence of police chief Brian Mullan]. Councillor Bratina?" Bratina: "Tim McCabe answered my question. Thank you." Di Ianni: "Councillor McCarthy?" McCarthy: "Mr Mayor, would we not ask the organization to come and make a presentation to all of council so we can hear what their concerns are, and address them at the time?" Di Ianni: "Well, we can do that. The issue is that there is a quasi-judicial process that's being undertaken right now, and we have a need to, by law, allow that to occur. I think that, let's, we can talk about process and councillor McHattie will be there. We can see where we go from there. Councillor Mitchell?" Mitchell: "Mr Mayor the aiport being in my ward I volunteer my time to be there with you as well." Di Ianni: "We'll invite you then. Councillor Whitehead?" Whitehead: "As the chair of the economic planning and development committee, I would like to be present." Di Ianni: "We'll invite you. We'll let people around who wishes to come be invited. Thank you very much. So we'll take a vote on receiving the recommendation. All in favour? [Hear "carried"]. Yes 5.4. Moved by. Did we have a mover and seconder? Yes we did. We have Mitchell and Merulla. All in favour? That's carried." |
||||
|
