1740 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

aastra, thank you for your observations further up in this thread. You've helped illustrate just how well this project works within the context of old town guidelines.

In response to Bob Fugger:

My opinion has been formed by a review of the 100 plus pages of information presented at the Policy and Governance Committee meeting of December 15th as well as the additional information of January 26th. If one must be recused for forming an opinion to soon, we would have to include Mayor Fortin as he has stated he is in favour of this project.

The HAC performs an advisory function only. Council decides.

Mr. Johnson, nobody is suggesting you are not able to form an opinion of a project prior to reviewing it as a member of a City Hall committee. But you have elected to go far beyond that by launching a media campaign on multiple fronts as part of efforts of a heritage advocacy/lobby group of which you are president. This is not akin to an elected politician supporting a project from its inception.

If Mayor Fortin had mounted a campaign to engage the local media with overtones of support for the project and headed a group supporting/lobbying for the project one could say that it is fair and valid for opponents with ties to City Hall to engage in similar activity. However, one could also assume that having done this, Mayor Fortin would have excused himself from the council chambers if he were to preside over a vote for Northern Junk.

But what has transpired is a president of a lobby group orchestrating an offensive against a project, and who will soon act in the capacity of chair of a committee that directly influences Victoria city council on matters of heritage.

In this instance, your position as president of a lobby group and as chair of an advisory committee at City Hall appear to conflict with one another.

Mr. Johnson, I do wish to thank you for your continued participation on this issue. It is not easy to step into the "house" of individuals who may not necessarily see eye to eye with you and engage them.

[dasmo]

Well said Mike. that bit on the daily did inspire me to come on and make comments...

[gumgum]

I too want to think Mr. Johnson for his participation on the forum. It is very much appreciated.

[Bob Fugger]

Mr. Johnson, nobody is suggesting you are not able to form an opinion of a project prior to reviewing it as a member of a City Hall committee. But you have elected to go far beyond that by launching a media campaign on multiple fronts as part of efforts of a heritage advocacy/lobby group of which you are president. This is not akin to an elected politician supporting a project from its inception.

This is exactly what the problem is - and it is on its face a breach of legal convention and precedence. Thank you for your succinct summation of the issue.

Mr. Johnson, I do wish to thank you for your continued participation on this issue. It is not easy to step into the "house" of individuals who may not necessarily see eye to eye with you and engage them.

Ditto.

[Sparky]

Well said Mike. that bit on the daily did inspire me to come on and make comments...

What bit on the daily? I missed that.

[Mike K.]

There was a story on this project and it referenced VV. Unlike the Times Colonist's editors, Shaw's The Daily editorial team has no problem referencing its sources.

[Bernard]

Neutrality is only required in a situation where there is an expectation of a quasi-judicial process. BY their very nature as city committees and advisory boards and being appointed by a partisan elected council to advise their decision making, they can not be quasi-judicial in nature. It may be called a hearing, but it is not a hearing in the sense of a court hearing.

The hearings held on developments are a chance for more input to be gathered and considered. There is no requirement to have to use this input in any way shape or form.

[Jon S]

We will make sure our part of the Walkway is there.....

http://www.vicnews.c.../138531219.html

[Bob Fugger]

Neutrality is only required in a situation where there is an expectation of a quasi-judicial process. BY their very nature as city committees and advisory boards and being appointed by a partisan elected council to advise their decision making, they can not be quasi-judicial in nature. It may be called a hearing, but it is not a hearing in the sense of a court hearing.

The hearings held on developments are a chance for more input to be gathered and considered. There is no requirement to have to use this input in any way shape or form.

Yes - I understand that black letter administrative law intends that nemo iudex in causa sua apply only to quasi-judicial hearings. However, my argument is that it is not unreasonable to suggest that this fundamental principle of natural justice - the rule against bias - ought to apply as well to a committee such as the Heritage Advisory Committee: a committee that while de jure has no power, de facto weilds a lot of influence on the decision-makers themselves. If the decsion-makers are receiving advice upon which to act that is itself biased, then arguably it follows that the decision-makers decision is inherently bias. We're asking Council to bake a pie from the fruit of a poisoned tree.

[G-Man]

Well said Bob. I have concerns about this as well. Mostly because of the active media campaign. Had that not occurred I would have been ambivalent. This committee has never been balanced.

[Mike K.]

From the City of Victoria's website (http://www.victoria....tee-tor.shtml):

Terms Applicable to all Public Advisory Committees

- To consider and provide advice to a Council Standing Committee on matters referred to the Public Advisory Committee by the Council Standing Committee.
- To consider and provide advice to the Council on matters referred to the Public Advisory Committee by the Council.
- To consider and provide advice to the relevant Standing Committee of Council on matters within the Public Advisory Committee’s specific terms of reference.

Specific Terms of Reference for the Heritage Advisory Committee

Primary reporting relationship: Council Standing Committee on Planning and Land Use.

- To advise the Standing Committee on those heritage matters coming within the scope of the committee under the Local Government Act or that are referred to it by the Standing Committee.
- To make recommendations to the Standing Committee respecting the designation of heritage buildings, structures and lands, and the preservation, alteration, renovation or demolition of heritage buildings, structures or lands.
- To meet jointly with the Advisory Design Panel to review and provide recommendations to the Standing Committee on development proposals referred to a joint meeting.

[Bob Fugger]

^ Yup. De jure advice, de facto power.

[G-Man]

The Union - thread has 7 pages started in 2007

The Sovereign - thread has 10 pages started in 2007

This thread has 27 what gives?

[Sparky]

^ This project is positioned on a piece of property that is probably one of the most prized and available in the city.

It deserves all the attention it can get.

[G-Man]

I guess so I was thinking that it may be the controversy in which case it makes little sense with the Sovereign being the tallest building in Old Town and the Union actually sitting neck and neck with other heritage buildings along a street wall making context more important.

[Sparky]

I agree, although mix a little waterfront in with a couple of old buildings that haven't fallen down yet .....and you got yourself a truckload of conversation.

[Jon S]

An update for Hallmark.

https://mail.google....356395c85ec0955

We hope supporters will also attend these two meetings to observe.

[Mike K.]

Sorry Jon, that link doesn't seem to be working.

[G-Man]

When are the two meetings again? I think a large VV audience would go a long way to keep things in perspective for the members. I will try to go should I be able to sneak away.

[Jon S]

We will confirm the second meeting date but the Heritage Meeting is on the 14th.