Craig’s Commentary Volume 1 Number 54


Who Wants To Pay $40,000 To Lose Their Sauble Paradise Home?

 

Editor:

 

It’s a bit hypocritical for  Mr. Dinardo to argue  that Ms. Mason  has put herself forward as the official representative of the people of Sauble, and then turn around and imply that he speaks for me by saying “We need to decide how that growth is best managed” and “ We need to develop infrastructure to grow carefully and safely” and “We need to get something for our tax dollars”, and “Right now we don’t get much.”

 

Ms. Mason’s use of the word “we” is simply a reflection of the clearly and overwhelmingly expressed view of most residents.

 

Views clearly expressed in the October 2010 sewers public meeting, where at least 90% of the people who spoke were against sewers.  Views clearly expressed in the election of October 2010, where 67% of the vote went to candidates opposed to the $70 million dollar sewers proposal.  Views clearly expressed in comments made to those candidates as they went door to door canvassing, one of which estimated that more than 98 per cent of the Sauble voters who did not have businesses were opposed to sewers.

 

Mr. DiNardo’s argument that Sauble “will continue to grow”, that “You can’t stop that”, and that “We need to develop infrastructure to grow carefully and safely” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. 

 

After 25 or more years of looking, no problem has been identified that would support even considering the seventy-million dollar unwanted, unnecessary, unjustifiable sewers system proposed in December 2010 by the now-discredited consulting engineers. 

 

Because the big sewers proposal is unnecessary, unwanted, and unjustifiable, it will not be implemented.  And without sewers, while Sauble growth may not be completely stopped, it will be very limited.

 

We will, without the sewers “infrastructure”, go carefully forward, with growth confined to residences compatible with private sewage systems.  And as Ms. Mason makes clear, without the proposed sewers infrastructure forced upon us we will be better able to retain/regain the quiet rural community ambience that most of us so cherish, and that brought most of us to Sauble in the first place.  Thankfully, we will be able to avoid the “plight of Wasaga.”

 

Mr. DiNardo suggests that when sewers are installed and some of the “naysayers” are forced to leave their magic Sauble paradise because they cannot afford the fifty thousand dollar up-front capital cost or the seven hundred dollar a year operating cost, the “naysayers” will soon be ecstatic to learn that their treasured Sauble homes sold for more than they would have had sewers not been installed.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that homes with sewers will actually sell for more than they would without.  And the trouble people on Sauble communal water systems are having selling their homes suggests that values will more likely drop if expensive communal services are added.  It’s a huge stretch, but just for illustration imagine that house values go up ten thousand dollars with the installation of sewers.  So…I pay fifty thousand to get sewers… but I get ten thousand more for my home……  now let’s see …that’s…uhh…………….

 

Hallelujah!  … Paradise lost and it only cost me forty thousand dollars!

 

My only question for Mr. DiNardo is “where might I send my thank you letter?”

 

 

Craig Gammie

SaubleBeach

Craig’s Commentary Volume 1 Number 53


Clarification – The Apparently Untouchable CAO Cook

 

In my Commentary 51 , I indicated that TSBP CAO Rhonda Cook had had manipulated the policy making process to get the procedural bylaw section 13.5 switched from wording to the effect that:

 

after first and second reading of a by-law, one time only, and without having to get approval from council, any member can have the by-law sent to Committee of the Whole for debate.

 

to wording to the effect that:

 

after first and second reading of a by-law, one time only, with approval from council, any member can have the by-law sent to Committee of the Whole for debate.

 

I still feel very strongly that the by-law as passed (“with approval from council”) is undemocratic, and that COA Cook’s switch maneuver was completely inappropriate.

 

In Commentary 51, I indicated that in the October 25th council meeting “the [unauthorized-switch version] by-law passed third reading, unanimously, without a hint of question or debate.”

 

That was inaccurate. Councillor Jackson in fact did not vote in favour of the unauthorized-switch version of the by-law.

 

And in several previous meetings, councillors Bowman and Jackson did argue strongly against CAO Cook’s “with approval from council” version.  

 

The discussion of whether a single councillor can send a by-law to debate after first and second reading started back in the June 28, 2011 council meeting, when the mayor ruled that a member could only send a by-law for debate if a council majority supported sending it for debate.  The discussion prompted my Commentary 31.

 

Councillors Jackson and Bowman were strongly opposed to the mayor’s ruling and garnered support of council to clarify the rule, in the fall, to make it clear that one councillor could have a by-law sent for debate, without requiring council approval.  I applauded this turnaround in Commentary 33.

 

Then CAO Cook pulled the unauthorized “switch” from “without having to get approval from council” to “with approval from council”.  As indicated in Commentary 46, in the October 18 Committee of the Whole meeting the unauthorized “switch” was challenged by Councillors Jackson and Bowman”, but was unopposed by several others.

 

And the “unauthorized-switch” version passed third reading October 25th.

 

 

Craig