In my September 18th blog I mentioned it was odd that a candidate for office would mention that they lived in a “Mattamy” home. A reader commented that I was unfair as this is a local custom in Cambridge. I appreciate the clarification but, it shows how your resume and actions can be interpreted differently depending on the local of the reader/observer. And, for a politician, one should be very aware of how their actions and written word can be interpreted and that the internet gives a somewhat permanency to one’s actions.
In the case of Oakville and the upcoming election, the candidates are trying to show how their past will reflect on their future actions. Burton points out that he has maintained the taxes over the last four years and has made the developers pay their share of development costs. This is fact.
Ann Mulvale also has a past record. As past president of the “Association of Municipalities of Ontario” she is on record with the following statement: “our vision of Ontario includes autonomous,accountable and accessible municipalities“.
Well, in my case, I did get access to Oakville and the town council and I had a chance to bring my case forward. I just found it odd that, as mayor, Mulvale got involved early in the process at the committee level and seemed to want to have the matter disappear before it got to council. In the end, with her vote and the vote of others on council, Mattamy was NOT held accountable for the illegal (code) wiring that put my children at risk and allowed what should have been considered an illegal sale and, the inspector who passed the furnace with the illegal wiring was not disciplined. Where was the accountability?
According to Chris Stoate, a candidate in the 2006 election for Mayor of Oakville, “he pushed through – over the Mayor’s objection – a project to protect Oakville’s trees”. To me, that shows Mulvale as someone more interested in the developers than for our natural environment in Oakville. Trees block access to land to be developed.
Recently, ” Former mayor Ann Mulvale pledged Tuesday to appoint an independent auditor general, if elected as mayor, to bring greater transparency to the Town’s finances“, if elected. There was an investigation of my illegal wiring issue and a report submitted by the investigator. I never received a copy of this report. Why is she so hot to hire, at extra expense, an auditor when she doesn’t share the outcome of reports submitted. She didn’t show any accountability on this matter.
And she is on record as being against “development charges” and supports Ford in the selling of land to Transcanada for a mega-power plant. What about those who live adjacent to this power plant? For her, development is prime.
No, Ann Mulvale has earned her nickname “on the street”. Asphalt Annie is very pro-development and, in my case, allowed an infraction by a builder and recommendations to prevent further occurrences to be pushed off to the province without any admonishment of Mattamy nor the inspector. No accountability there and, Mattamy got to donate to Wellspring – at the request of Ann Mulvale. So, the optics on this one show a different picture than the fantasy she is putting to the voter.
So, in the upcoming elections do you want a developer run council (i.e. Mattamy et al) or a taxpayer run council? It is your choice. Mattamy has shown its preference by bringing in bus loads of workers to sway council votes.
With a developer supported council, they will save on the bus rentals.
.
.
.
http://condron.us/index.php?i=6
condron.us