Home News Parkland Edgehill Park An Open Letter From Steve Gilchrist – Council May Want To Read This
An Open Letter From Steve Gilchrist – Council May Want To Read This

An Open Letter From Steve Gilchrist – Council May Want To Read This


I offer these thoughts as a private citizen and they reflect my views, exclusively, and not the views of any other individual or organization. My background includes several years as the Parliamentary Assistant and then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and, prior to and since being elected, I have been an active participant in many OMB and ERT hearings.

Some perspective for Council’s consideration – and an OMB tribunal

The fact that, after the original donation, the town/hospital (whoever was deeded the land) decided not to construct a hospital, notwithstanding the “preference” (but not requirement) in the donation from Playfair. The decision to create a park, and not build a hospital, extinguished any reasonable inference/obligation/expectation/etc that the land would ever be used for a hospital in the future. You cannot claim prior rights on a piece of land once someone else has exercised their rights of ownership – at least, if there was to be such a claim, it had to be made in a timely fashion and the fact that decades have passed renders moot any suggestion that there was some lingering expectation of a hospital at that site.

Every single person who has purchased a property or leased premises in the proximity of that park has a reasonable expectation that it will continue to be a park, for two reasons: 1) it is exceptionally rare for a municipal park to be rezoned to some other use – it virtually never happens; and 2) there was no registration, on the title of that land, that would have suggested, to anyone who did a title search, that there was any prospective construction to take place on that property. The legal principle of “mens rea” might even be argued to apply, as “the actions of a reasonable man” would certainly have been to conclude that “once a park, always a park” so anyone purchasing a nearby property could have made that reasonable assumption.

Furthermore, those properties which directly abut the park, or whose sightlines to the lake will be affected by the construction of the new building will suffer a significant and demonstrable loss of property value. The legal principle of “injurious affection” insists that you cannot do something, with your property, that adversely affects the value of other properties, without adequate compensation. There has, to my knowledge, been no offer to compensate all the properties within sight of the new building, so I would certainly cite the financial damage being suffered by those who paid a premium to own a house near, or in sight of, or within walking distance of, a very significant and attractive park.

The users of that park derive measurable benefits from its availability. Depriving them of those benefits – something that accrues to them by right of their payment of property taxes, as owners or tenants – without compensation is unfair and unjust. If the Town or the developer were proposing to take 2 acres of parkland, at this site, but develop another 2 acre parcel within a reasonable walking distance, it would be difficult to argue against – but that is NOT what is happening here.

The Town has, always, collected park levies and other development fees from builders of new commercial, industrial and residential properties, such as the new Walmart plaza, the Home Depot, and the new LCBO plaza. These fees would certainly have totaled many hundreds of thousands of dollars and a defined portion of those fees are levies assessed against any property that does not, on its own site, allocate a set percentage of the land (check with the Town for its “green space” requirements), typically 25 – 30%. Instead of keeping that percentage of land “green” on its site, the developer is, in essence, paying to build additional greenspace elsewhere in the town. After making my comments, at the town hall meeting, I don’t believe any Councillor spoke to the issue and a quick review of the Town website would suggest that there have not been major commitments to new green spaces in the Town in recent years. In stark contrast to the expectation, of both the existing residents and the new developers, of INCREASING the amount of parkland, the Town is, I would argue, failing to deliver on the reasonable expectations that would follow the assessment and collection of those park levies.

Similarly, all residents have a vested interest in the financial well-being of the Town and of the reasonable and cost-effective use of Town resources, including its parks. Leasing the land for $1 year is a gross violation of the fiduciary obligation the Town has, to its residents, and does not reflect the fair market value of that land. Furthermore, the construction of the building will, for all intents and purposes, permanently render that portion of the park as unusable for recreation. The Town is being negligent in failing to reflect on that permanent loss by entering into any agreement that doesn’t reflect the recapture of 100% of the value of the land, at fair market value. It would be fine to recover the value, in the form of a lease, but, within a reasonable time frame, say 10 years, that lease should include the pro-rated portion of a monthly payment, plus the interest on the unpaid portion of the full market value. The full market value, by the way, should reflect “the highest and best use” of that land – so it is completely irrelevant what this health centre can pay, or wants to pay, it is what a developer of, say, a high-rise lakefront condominium would pay for that land and I would be surprised if that wasn’t in a range starting at $500,000, unserviced, to over $1,000,000 depending on the height of building the Town allowed.

At the town hall meeting, there was at least one owner of commercial property, right on King Street, who offered to construct the facilities required by the health centre yet he claimed that, at no time did the Town include his land as part of the assessment of alternative sites. The suggestion that the former LCBO site, for example, was not appropriate is simply untrue. The location of that site would lend itself, perfectly, to the needs of the health centre and the suggestion that there are some sort of sewer issues is, I suspect, either a complete red herring or, if they are real, reflect an issue that the Town will have to deal with, whether or not the health centre builds on that site!

Again, as part of its fiduciary obligation to its residents, the Town must be able to demonstrate – in specific terms – the reasons why the parkland was, to quote the proponent “the preferred site”. No doubt it was preferred because greenfield sites are, by definition, less expensive to develop than brownfield sites – but that isn’t a problem for the Town or its residents, it’s a problem for the developer! The resident should cite the failure of the Town to demonstrate that it used the best interests of the residents as the ultimate criterion of whether or not to lease the parkland.

At the town hall meeting, one of the proponents and at least one Councillor indicated that the funding the health centre expects from the province was time limited and that sense of urgency was a major justification – if not the sole justification – for rushing through the rezoning and the granting of development approval. First off, I did not see, at that meeting, any evidence that such a condition exists on any prospective funding. If you have seen such documentation, great, but, if not, I think it is reasonable to expect the developer and the Town to produce any and all documentation relating to the funding of the project.

Furthermore, after you see that documentation, if there truly is a time frame within which the development must start and finish, THE VERY FACT OF AN APPEAL TO THE OMB AND, IF THEY AGREE TO HEAR THE APPEAL, THE DELAY REQUIRED TO ARRANGE AND HOLD THE HEARING WOULD, PRESUMABLY, MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET THE TIME FRAME PROPOSED BY THE PROVINCE! The Town and the developer cannot have it both ways – they are either being honest with residents about the need to start and finish within a clearly defined timeframe, or they aren’t and, if they aren’t, then that would be a valid reason for the OMB to reject their decision of the Planning Committee and Council and send the matter back to Council for a new round of planning discussions.

At the meeting, and since, many of your residents have cited very specific matters related to membership, by one of the Councillors who supported the rezoning, on or freshly off the Board of the health centre.

I will not offer any legal opinion except to say that the evidence I have seen, on facebook, is very compelling. If a Councillor, in this, or any other matter, has ANY sort of affiliation with an entity that is appearing before Committee or Council, or if he has a family member with an affiliation, it is an absolute requirement to declare that conflict and, in my experience, I have never seen a Councillor vote on any matter related to an organization on which he has or had a direct involvement, save an except matters which don’t involve funding or zoning or any financial consideration, i.e. support for the annual United Way campaign even if a Councillor was, at one time, on the United Way board. On the other hand, if the United Way asked for a donation from Council, using this example, the Councillor who was, or had been, involved should declare a conflict and recuse himself from the vote. It does not matter whether the number of Councillors, in a conflicted situation, equals or exceeds the differential by which the pertinent vote was lost – having even one conflicted Councillor should cause the OMB to overturn the decision.

In addition to the above issues, vis a vis an appeal to the OMB, it wouldn’t hurt to send a complaint to the Provincial Ombudsman, citing the conflict(s) of interest and the failure of the Town to prove it had acted in a sound financial manner. A letter to the Auditor General may be in order, who has argued for more audit powers over municipalities.

As a final thought, I would certainly suggest that, if you believe there is a prima facie case of conflict, that those opposed to the rezoning continue their efforts in the court of public opinion. I would certainly not want to be a Councillor who sees my name – every day – in another letter to the Editor! Any Councillor who voted in favour of the motion is entitled to table a motion to reopen the matter, at any time, and I believe that if all the townsfolk – not just the ones who live near the park – continue to hear about the lousy financial arrangement and the about the loss of parkland (the park near them could be next!), you might be surprised at how support for the cause will continue to grow.

I would encourage you to keep Patrick Brown apprised of developments but I have to point out that MPP’s are specifically precluded from taking any position on a matter before the Courts or any other Tribunal, including the OMB. That is done to ensure that there is no political interference with a fair hearing – even if the influence would be positive!! That being said, Patrick, and his office staff, are allowed to explain “process” matters, i.e. how to make an appeal, but they cannot deal with the specifics of a case.

I hope these suggestions are helpful and, if you have any further questions, please feel   free to call on me. Again, I don’t presume to offer legal opinion – I’m not a lawyer! – but as someone who got into politics primarily for environmental and planning reasons and who takes great pride in the considerable amount of increased parkland for which I am, directly and indirectly, responsible, I was shocked, during the month I spent in Midland this summer, to hear about the proposed rezoning of such a wonderful piece of protected land, overlooking Georgian Bay. By the end of the town hall meeting, I was even more incredulous and I commend all those residents who have challenged the merits of this rezoning and who will, now, take it to the OMB.

If there is any justice, you will get the matter overturned and sent back to Council where, hopefully, greater diligence will applied to any subsequent consideration of the location of the health centre! Best of luck!


Steve Gilchrist

Editor’s Note:

Let’s think about the credibility of Steve Gilchrist. He has years of direct experience in this, helped author the legislation, fought and won many large battles for parkland and the environment and understands the issues intimately.

Compare this with our new and young town planner and relatively green council members, none of whom have ANY expertise in these matters except for the planner’s mini-victory in Tay when the residents could not mount any type of appeal – hardly a victory earned and nothing to gloat about.

Why would Council not listen to an authority in a matter that they had before them?

Instead they listened to young staff, whose experience pales in comparison and also place most of their stock in the advice and data received from the proponents of this project who have everything to gain.

We would argue that Mr Gilchrist has nothing to gain out this either way and, in our opinion, his standing and experience are beyond Council’s ability to question or discount. It is sheer foley to think they won’t reconsider their stance based on empirical evidence from someone who could easily be an ‘expert’ witness in the subject matter.

Based on his submissions alone, Council would be foolish not to at least reconsider their position or revisit this in chambers. Do they really think they’ve been briefed enough to know better than he? Do they think their peers around the table are more objective and experienced in these matters?

Even if they want to dispute one or two of his viewpoints on this matter, the rest should give pause for thought.  The OMB will want to know what, if anything Council has done to counter each of these points and to simply discount them as Council chose to ignore public opinion could be a costly mis-calculation and expose the Town to litigation beyond the OMB.

We’ve given the Town and Council far more than they need to stop this process and make it right.  If they charge blindly forward towards this battle, ignoring every opportunity to settle this matter without a costly OMB appeal and litigation, then we will stand united against them until the last one of us falls.

The comments on Facebook about this article are unbelievable… you can read them for yourself at https://www.facebook.com/groups/ourmidland/2182365781904138/


Editorial Note: The views and opinions expressed in this and any article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of OurMidland.ca community news.  Research claims and form your own opinions.  All publication and participation must abide by our terms of use policy.


    1. Absolutely! This is not a secret. We have no cards to hide in this campaign. At any point, the Town can do the right thing and save everybody the legal expenses of a multi-front war with their own residents.

  1. Thanks for getting involved in Midland politics Steve Gilchrist!! Aside from a few inaccuracies it is certainly a well thought out letter whether I agree with the stance or not.

  2. That the former LCBO site would be suitable for one. Aside from the pipes underground the site is not large enough. He also mentioned that we removed a 2 acre park. I dont think he knows that it is a portion of a much larger park. This development doesnt remove the ability to walk to a park for the surrounding residents, there would still be tons of park left.
    He also mentioned the town should create a similarly sized park elsewhere in town. The discussion about a park in sunnyside has had nothing but pushback from most of the supporters of save Edgehill, from my observations.

    1. Now Cody, that’s really quite insulting. I familiarized myself with the issue and YES I do know that it is a portion of a much larger park. My comments, in fact, make that quite clear. As for the suitability of the LCBO, underground pipes is a complete red herring. It may increase the cost of any new development, but, unless you are suggesting that the Town Councillors are comfortable leaving a prime piece of downtown land sitting idle, in perpetuity, then sooner or later SOMETHING has to be built there – why not sooner and why not a service that would be in a prime location for the clients it would serve?

    2. The current building can be purchased and repurposed. There is no reason to break ground there, in my opinion. It also is not big enough for the building let alone 99 parking spaces. I am not trying to insult you, you didn’t get where you are without knowing what you are talking about.

    3. Thanks for that reply, Cody. My background, before politics, was in retail and there is a limited, and declining, market for buildings with the design of the former LCBO. Buildings of that vintage were not designed for indefinite life, on the contrary, it is now reaching the point where significant renovation costs would be incurred to meet modern energy efficiency standards, for example. The most effective use of that property is almost certainly not a “spruced up” existing building but, rather, something that is designed with today’s building code and energy efficiency in mind and featuring a layout suited for the specific tenant who will be using the premises. Finally, there would be none of the heritage considerations which would apply on King Street, in fact, most people would rejoice in seeing the bland, anonymous buildings that were “modern” in 1950 and 1960 replaced with something far more aesthetically appealing.

    4. I can’t argue with your experience. I can’t even defend the buildings integrity or ability to be repurposed. I can say that the site is very small in comparison. I can get you the building specs vs. the size of the LCBO site. I have personally spent hours on Google Maps looking for alternate location. I also have the documentation to show 20+ other sites considered. I understand the sensitivity about building on prime park land. We really need this health hub in our community, hopefully downtown. The grant is quite the gift and is a large amount of money to a municipality of our size.

  3. Perhaps maybe because of all the parks in that area now???Maybe because the suggestion of another park after removing Edgehill from the residents is still very fresh!!!

  4. Some little playground park tucked up in Ward 3 is no replacement for waterfront fields, trees and the view of Georgian Bay, the trail, the new waterfront development etc etc etc… you cannot compare this ill-conceived land “purchase” to the worth of un-valuated prime parkland that we already own. Waterfront parkland is invaluable and should be the VERY LAST thing we part with, instead of the first.

  5. The views from Sunnyside are beautiful as well with the elevation. Having said that I am not defending that park, i dont support spending 200-500k on it, thats for sure.

    1. So the 60 kid in this neighborhood should just get on there bikes and ride cover to sunny side to a park hummm I don’t think so

    2. Stacie, when you say park; do you mean playground or place to sit under a tree? As far as I know, there is a playground pretty much across the street from the Edgehill Park near the Boathouse, or if you are feeling ambitious you could walk the beautiful rotary trail to Pete Peterson Park. If you are looking for a tree to sit under, well there are no shortages of them. I am not pro or con this whole Edgehill thing, I just think it’s kind of a stretch to say you have to go all the way to sunnyside for a park.

    3. The hole thing the reason neighbourhood kids don’t use the rotary park is due to trying to cross the road second keeling kids away from road as soon as u have a group of kids they play tag and they all seem to be line for that road y a play ground is so close to a busy street is crazy

    4. That’s actually not a super busy street. Only at 8am-9am and 4pm-6pm. I drive it everyday going to and from work and on my lunch breaks it is never busy midday. I also do believe there is a cross walk right near the park. Or the kids could walk down to the lights on King St. and cross at the lights. I didn’t have a park in my backyard growing up, I had to cross streets all the time and I made it just fine. Kids just need to know road safety and not cross when a car is coming. I understand you are completely against building on Edgehill and that’s fine. However, you are grasping at whatever reason you can, when there are clearly other options available to you.

  6. Not only are we parting with edge hill there is talks with budget on selling park land and green space am I wrong so we already gave away some park land weather or not council wants to call it that it’s on them but now we are going to look at selling more and then buy some more else where huh really doesent make sense to me like I said if you got money for a park fix the ones you have

  7. Let’s also think about the credibility of Steve Gilchrist. He has years of direct experience in this, helped author the legislation, fought and won many large battles for parkland and the environment and understands the issues intimately.

    Compare this with our new and young town planner and relatively green council members, none of whom have ANY expertise in these matters except for the planner’s mini-victory in Tay when the residents could not mount any type of appeal – hardly a victory earned and nothing to gloat about.

    Why would you not listen to the an authority in a matter that you had before you. Instead you listened to young staff, whose experience pales in comparison and also place most of your stock in the advice and data received from the proponents of this project who have everything to gain.

    Mr Gilchrist has NOTHING to gain out this either way and his standing and experience are beyond your ability to question or discount. It is sheer foley to think you won’t reconsider you stance based on empirical evidence from someone who could easily be an ‘expert’ witness in the subject matter.

    With all due respect Cody Oschefski, based on his submissions alone, you would be a fool not to at least reconsider your position or revisit this in Council. Do you really think you’ve been briefed enough to know better than he? Do you think your peers around the table are more objective and experienced in these matters?

  8. I would never ever claim to know than him in regards to process, government or politics. I would argue that my Midland knowledge is better than most, including him.

    I would reconsider my stance if there was new information presented. I was told by a member of OurCommunity that you were advised not to file an OMB appeal because you didn’t have a chance of winning without a planning issue associated the decision, which he/she acknowledged you do not have. I know this is going to start a great debate, which I am open to. Just my thoughts.
    Wes Crown would be very happy to hear he has been called a young town planner. 🙂 I would put him in the same age bracket as Mr. Gilchrist

  9. Mr. Gilcrest is indeed an expert and it amazes me that some councillors feel more knowledgeable!! He has listed his credentials!

  10. Cody I did not say that they would SAY they were more knowledgeable but the fact that the points that Mr. Gilcrest made were ignored when they voted against Edgehill speaks volumes

  11. The legal grounds are established and will be up to the OMB to review. There is much food for thought in his letter. Read our post about the OMB challenges we faced that had to be weighed before committing. Evidently we’ve come to terms with those challenges.

  12. Again just sayin… y would we want to walk to somewhere else park.. our park is old and hostoric… i want shade by old trees not new ones that take 20 years or more to make something we already have…. not cool to re start a park just for… Ya nothing should go their… thats y u have commerical space available….

  13. Cody I have just reread your comments and have a question for you!How would “reconsidering your stance” change what you have already voted against??That just does not make sense to me!!

    1. I was asked to reconsider my stance by OurMidland in their post.

      “With all due respect Cody Oschefski, based on his submissions alone, you would be a fool not to at least reconsider your position or revisit this in Council. Do you really think you’ve been briefed enough to know better than he? Do you think your peers around the table are more objective and experienced in these matters?”

      Now that it has been appealed it comes back to council to see how we want to handle it.

    1. Good luck on that one… it’s a simple argument in favour of them, based on your Council’s own past practices. It gets used in legal and HR battles all the time… read my longer response below.

  14. You won’t allow for further growth or expansion on Edgehill Park eh? You won’t have a choice… Slide 21 of their presentation to you in January cites in their ‘ask’ that the site is perfect because it “Allows room for growth”. Past practices – you already gave them the initial land – will be used against us to force us to turn over more… they cannot just add on a new storey… or move their building… they will GROW! Don’t be so naive Cody. Read their slide!

  15. If a new vote happened on this, and you voted with logic, you’d be the fourth against it. It would die there. You may be 1/9 but three more of your peers already see this for what it is.

  16. Ok. That’s where your thinking gets a little too authoritarian for my liking Cody. This is the reason that you and I don’t see eye to eye on many things. YOU don’t decide how to deal with it when it comes back to council. We the people of Midland decide how it gets dealt with! You work for us… it’s high time you realized that my friend.

  17. The reason it has to come back is because we have to choose who to hire for representation at the OMB hearing. I’m more of a listener than a teller, you should know that by now Cory Atkinson-Dalton.

    1. So basically you’re telling us that you’re going against the wishes of your own constituents again no matter the cost… all I can say to that is wow… not a smart political move.

    2. 2200 and climbing every day isn’t just OurMidland Cody. lt’ll be over 3000 residents before you know it, then 4000, 5000, 6000 etc etc etc… Protection of parkland is a major issue that keeps getting world wide attention. Everywhere you look now it’s become a political platform. There are environmental groups backed by some of the most intelligent and politically influential people out there. The law was changed to reflect the wishes of the majority of Ontarians to that effect protecting us the voters from any and all financial reprisals and strong arm tactics by corporations and developers.

    3. Does not matter how many are Midland residents. This facility is not just for Midland it is for the 3 other surrounding communities Tay, Tiny & Penetang. If residents from these communities do not agree with using parkland to build the health hub then why do they not have a say? Also Cody you have said once a Midlander always a Midlander many signatures are people that have lived here or own property in Midland. It effects their town do they not get a say? A petition can be signed by anyone that believes in the reason for the petition, freedom of speech right?

    4. Im not saying people shouldnt have a say. I’m not attacking freedom of speech. I am asking how many of my employers, the ones that physically pay my paycheque, are on that petition. That matters to me.

    5. Im asking you, OurMidland is all about transparency and accountablilty, it is a simple question. I have the petition. I can disect it myself if you guys don’t want to provide me the answer.

    6. Haha, its nice to put you to work for a change. Chair of a community group won’t come without hard work :). I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

    7. Yes cody making extra work for her is making me work harder and we already have a lot going on she will do this for you because she wants to help and make everyone happy but this extra does not make me happy when it is a totally pointless thing because every name counts and matters not just midland signatures

    8. If memory serves me correctly Rachel is a hard-working volunteer and that means not paid!Telling her to “enjoy it as much as you do ” is insulting, you could do yourself as a paid councillor with a desire to know should be able to do their own legwork!!

    9. The only benefit to Rachel is the satisfaction that she is doing thge right thing and I a a Midlander with my bad on the petition appreciate her efforts!

    10. You know what? Forget I asked. I do enjoy this job. All I asked was that a community group provide me with information. Apparently I am out of line for doing that. Please withdraw my request, I have a copy of the petition. Thanks

    11. Cory Atkinson-Dalton, could I do all of what? I have 2 full time jobs, i am on the board of directors at MCC and Boys and Girls club, I am on the buttertart festival commttee, im on the communications team, little lake park steering committee, community services committee. I am the vice president of my union at work and skilled trades rep. Im also a home owner, so yes, I can relate.
      If you recall, I did not ask anything of Rachell McTague in my inital ask. I asked OurMidland to provide me with 1 figure and I have multiple people attacking me. I know how you feel now, Joel McTague.

    12. Just saying it doesent matter all the people who signed it matters each name all adults that pay taxs if not directly to midland than to Canada and as an adult in Canada I hope my name on documents like this matter that’s why we have these process ‘ s am I wrong so go ahead and do what you want

    13. I’m sorry. I understand now that I was out of line for asking for a figure from OurMidland. Wont happen again. My apologies

    14. Now cody don’t make it like this group is difficult I remember asking questions and not getting answers from council more run around than anything or a certain group even when they got the yes vote they say they are willing to help but do not answer questions and remember don’t take things personal remember when I was attacked for asking questions on your turf

  18. You can make a motion that based on all the disclosure we’ve made available to you, the community and Council, that it would be worth rescinding the bylaws (which are now in limbo anyway) and dealing with the outstanding issues from town staffers; the draft lease you asked for but don’t have yet… the details about dev charges, and property taxes… you still have no clear answer… you can cite the legal issues and the costs as unjustifiable given the chance you lose the appeal.

    Get your ducks in a row, get ALL the info, get a valuation through the surplus mechanism your planners should be using if they are hellbent to dispose of parkland… then vote again, armed will all the facts AND ALL THE ITEMS YOU ASKED STAFF FOR.

    Doesn’t this make sense? We are not going to lay down and let this happen without a fight. We have planning evidence. We have procedural evidence. We have environmental law. We still have 2200+ signatures… how much more do you need to reel this back in and revisit this.

    Seriously, we are not doing this to punish you, this is a matter of ethics, transparency and proper planning. We have many more issues with this that will come out in the appeal should it be granted. Why… why… can’t you see this for what it is. Save our money and save the park. I am astounded we have to go this route to get our Council to listen to reason from so many residents who can look at this far more objectively than well-meaning but opportunistic corporate greed. This is a land grab. We cannot blame them for asking for it… but we are astounded at how easily you cowed and rolled over, handing it to them without any ‘real’ concern for the unprecedented public backlash, never seen before in our community.

    They already said…on your website, that if this does not go through then go back to planning and find a new site. It’s all so simple…

  19. Does anyone know if the land across from the cemetery was/is an option? If my memory serves me correctly, The Villa had a sign stating that was the location of a beautiful new facility and I don’t see anything going on there. Do they own that land?

    1. I did send an aerial view of this property to staff for consideration. I did not receive any specifics as to why it was not suitable

    2. So they just turned it down without giving a reason even after you asked and that didn’t set off any red flags with you? If I were in your position Cody, I would have insisted on an answer.

    3. This is not the only issue that I deal with. There are 30 other issues with 30 other people from the community expecting movement or answers. I’m doing the best I can, Cory Atkinson-Dalton.

    4. I’m just saying that with how important this issue was at the time and still is. I figured that you as an elected official would’ve put more emphasis on the fact that you submitted a viable option and were given no ligitimate reason of why it was passed over. As a union rep you should already know to question everything and assume nothing.

    5. I totally understand what you’re saying. Just please understand that this is a part time position. The job description says I show up to 3 meetings a month. I do go above and beyong the best I can. I did a lot of investigating and deep diving on this topic. I sent the locations to town staff because they are unbiased. I did the best I could at the time with the time I had available. If it wasnt enough for you Im sorry.

    6. Well if it’s not owned by the town, for the case of this discussion it really doesn’t matter I guess. The prospective sites had to be town owned?

    7. The grant they got from the govt. said not for aquisition of land. There has been some controversy around that as well.

    8. Public hospitals(Waypoint) aren’t eligible for land purchase grants that’s true. But CHC’s(Chigamik) are. That’s in the CHC guidelines. See attachment:

  20. I am in no means trying to attack anyone here but I think that councillors are suppose to be our voice – we vote for them for a reason, that being said it a lot of times it’s a power struggle between what their ward wants and what they want. I feel like this isn’t right. If your ward (more then 50%) is against something, shouldn’t you respect that and vote for what your ward (community wants) we are the reason you got a seat in this position; if it wasn’t for US you wouldn’t have had this opportunity (your going to bat for us.) I was in support of bringing in the young and changing council in the last years election but I find it very disheartening that the people we voted for are not even supporting what their people have encouraged and have spoken for.

  21. You guys are really giving it to me today… Kathryn Mary, where do you get the figure, more than 50% of our ward is opposed?

    1. Cody Oschefski I am no means just meaning in regards to the waypoint “hub” it’s just a generalization – wasn’t meant for you to feel it was directed at you. Just in regards to everything. It is my understanding that not one councillor on ward 2 was against the hub when a lot of community members in this ward were

  22. Yes it should be all of midland most definitely it seems almost fishy that only a 4 block radius gets invited to meetings about this project

Leave a Reply

An Open Letter From Steve Gilchrist – Council May Want To Read This

%d bloggers like this: