Developer funds trip to Calgary for CALUC
#1
Posted 20 November 2006 - 07:29 PM
Last month I heard that Bayview Properties/Ken Mariash flew members of the Vic-West Community Association Land Use Committee, including noted anti-highrise activist Dianne Carr to Calgary on a private jet. This was intended to give members an on the ground view of this developer's projects in that city.
In the editorial of this month's Vic-West Voice, the VWCA's newspaper, a passing mention was made of this trip.
Now I don't know if there's anything wrong with this, but it sure seems wierd that a group of people who have made a reputation for playing hardball with developers is suddenly accepting expenses paid trips on private jets from these same developers.
#2
Posted 20 November 2006 - 07:36 PM
#3
Posted 20 November 2006 - 07:40 PM
#4
Posted 20 November 2006 - 07:45 PM
#5
Posted 20 November 2006 - 07:54 PM
I think that if the Land Use Committee of my community association accepted a trip like that, from a developer planning a major project in my neighbourhood (and one who presumably is planning more), I would consider it a conflict of interest, especially if there wasn't full disclosure beforehand.
It does not seem quite ethical, as far as I'm concerned.
(*) Well in advance of the actual trip, I mean.
#6
Posted 20 November 2006 - 08:11 PM
#7
Posted 20 November 2006 - 08:17 PM
^ Exactly. If the the Assoc. paid to go on their own to check it out then ok but not on the developers dime. Yes these are volunteer orgs. but they operate within the framwork of cityhall and we wouldn't accept if the Advisory Design Panel were sent to Calgary to check out a project, they are volunteers. I see no difference.
How can knowing more about a project be a bad thing? Again, if it's a bare-bones trip, it's no luxury. It is more a pain than anything. Not every trip is a "vacation". Ask any person who must travel frequently for a living.
#8
Posted 20 November 2006 - 08:18 PM
For example, what if Westbank had paid to send someone from the Downtown Residents Assoc. on a free trip to one of their projects in another province in order to build support for The Falls? What would Dianne Carr have said about that when she was in the process of lobbying against that project? Not to mention the attitude that the VWCA initially took towards Ken Mariash when he first unveiled The Roundhouse project. It's soooo hypocritical.
#9
Posted 20 November 2006 - 08:53 PM
#10
Posted 20 November 2006 - 09:55 PM
This was intended to give members an on the ground view of this developer's projects in that city.
I don't know about you guys but the implication of this scares the hell out of me. You're attempting to sway anti-development types by showing them new construction...in Calgary??
I suppose it could be worse. They could've taken them to see Edmonton.
I'm not kidding. If looking like Alberta is the alternative to looking like Vancouver then God help Victoria.
#11
Posted 21 November 2006 - 07:13 AM
#12
Posted 21 November 2006 - 10:06 AM
#13
Posted 21 November 2006 - 06:07 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#14
Posted 22 November 2006 - 08:51 AM
Unless there is someting more to this, I don't see anything wrong with it.
#15
Posted 22 November 2006 - 08:58 AM
Remember doctors are no longer allowed to get flown around for presentations by drug companies. It is essentially the same thing. There is not necessarily anything nefarious going on but it should not be done.
#16
Posted 22 November 2006 - 09:00 AM
There's no evidence of this here.
#17
Posted 22 November 2006 - 09:05 AM
#18
Posted 22 November 2006 - 09:06 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#19
Posted 22 November 2006 - 10:26 AM
#20
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:12 AM
I don't think it's a question of it being a "big deal," but then again I'm married to a person who argued with me about whether it was ethical to burn a CD from the library to my computer. I argued that it was, since as a taxpayer, I'm part owner of that CD, bought by the library. My spouse disagreed -- even though we both agree that the Digital Millennium cppyright (copywrongs, more like) act is designed only to protect corporations, but that's another issue. Then again, I also don't take paperclips from the office or use office copiers/ printers for personal material (i.e., non-work related). This is all small fry stuff (and some of you are probably ROFLMAO), as flying to Calgary at someone else's expense may indeed appear to be to some. But that doesn't mean that it's not important. I really do think it's an ethics question: if you do your personal copying at the office, what else are you willing to -- let's call it by its real name -- steal? And if you take up an offer to tour a developer's projects at his expense (while that same developer is developing in the neighbourhood on whose land use committee you supposedly impartially sit), then I have to wonder what your ethics are, especially if you don't even recognize that it does raise a problem, whether it's "bad optics" or bad ethics.Are VHF and I that don't see the big deal?
Qualifier: I'll stand by that, unless it turns out that this junket was approved by the Vic. West Community Association membership.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users