3521 replies to this topic

[Barrrister]

More profitable to build in Fairfield even with paying a bit more for the lot than in other areas. Basic per unit economics here.

[dasmo]

Why should there be secret meetings with council over this matter? That is also inexcusable. We need someone with deep pockets to get irritated by this and sue. There should be transparency at least.

[spanky123]

Why should there be secret meetings with council over this matter? That is also inexcusable. We need someone with deep pockets to get irritated by this and sue. There should be transparency at least.

 

Because they don't want the public knowing what they are talking about?!

 

Lets see if this type of behaviour becomes the norm where all of the important decisions are being made in camera. 

Edited by spanky123, 05 December 2022 - 07:39 AM.

[Mike K.]

Have any of them stepped out before in protest?

[Victoria Watcher]

Why should there be secret meetings with council over this matter? That is also inexcusable. We need someone with deep pockets to get irritated by this and sue. There should be transparency at least.

I think it was for legal advice on whether they can proceed without another motion or hearing or whatever.

[spanky123]

Spanky, have you considered the impact of having one of these built next door to a SFD as to its value? Once a few are built on a street in close proximity you will see a demand drop by people looking for SFD. 

 

People pay a big bonus to be in a stable SFD neighborhood. You are adding in developers as purchasers but you are forgetting to subtract people who dont want to be near or adjacent to six and eight plexes. 

 

All depends on who the buyer is. Someone looking for a family home may want to pay less but a developer will want to pay more.

 

Take a look a 224 Superior St as an example. Was a B&B that was converted to 4 'rental units' a year or two ago. After the work was done they were converted to a strata and are owner occupied and now worth $1M ea. Pretty good return for the developer, not so great for affordable housing.

[dasmo]

I think it was for legal advice on whether they can proceed without another motion or hearing or whatever.

They work for us. Attorney clue privilege should not apply. The legal advice should be open for us to hear.

[dasmo]

Like the emergencies commission. They could dodge THE question easily. What legal grounds did you do it on. “Ask our lawyer”. Lawyer: “attorney client privilege”.

[spanky123]

They work for us. Attorney clue privilege should not apply. The legal advice should be open for us to hear.

 

There are examples where having legal advice made public would harm the taxpayer (ie lawsuit settlement discussion)

[dasmo]

The lawyer in this case is giving advice to us. Council is supposed to represent us. it should at least be prefaced with a statement as to exactly what is being discussed and why it’s secret. This is another example of the fact that they don’t work for us…

[spanky123]

The lawyer in this case is giving advice to us. Council is supposed to represent us. it should at least be prefaced with a statement as to exactly what is being discussed and why it’s secret. This is another example of the fact that they don’t work for us…

 

Yes but if they tell the public then they are also telling the other party! You want the other party in any negotiations knowing what your thought process and bottom line are during negotiations?!

[Mike K.]

And the in camera components are becoming far more prevalent.

Is anyone keeping track anywhere of how often they go in camera?

[dasmo]

Yes but if they tell the public then they are also telling the other party! You want the other party in any negotiations knowing what your thought process and bottom line are during negotiations?!

This isn’t a legal fight it’s a community shaping process. There is no “other party”. Or maybe it is a fight?

[dasmo]

And the in camera components are becoming far more prevalent.

Is anyone keeping track anywhere of how often they go in camera?

Does “in camera” mean they filmed it?

[Mike K.]

You’d think so, wouldn’t you.

[dasmo]

You’d think so, wouldn’t you.

Freedom is slavery…

[Victoria Watcher]

Latin term literally meaning "in chambers" but carrying the meaning "in private".

[dasmo]

But actually meaning “in secret”.

[dasmo]

Closing a Meeting
The decision to close a meeting to the public should not be made hastily or without careful consideration of the principles and values that underlie the open meeting
provisions in the Community Charter. In many cases, there may be some uncertainty or disagreement as to whether it is appropriate or necessary to close a meeting to the public. Paragraph 90(1)(n) of the Community Charter authorizes the closure of a meeting to determine whether it is necessary to discuss a particular matter in a closed meeting. Use of this provision to allow discussion and debate is an effective way of ensuring that meetings are not improperly closed to the public.

 

Resolutions to Close a Meeting
Once a local government has decided that a subject should be discussed in a closed meeting, the procedural requirements in section 92 of the Community Charter must be followed. Section 92 states that a local government must pass a resolution in an open meeting before closing a meeting or part of a meeting. This resolution must include two things and should include a third. It must state:
1. That a meeting or part of a meeting is to be closed, and
2. The reason for the decision to close the meeting. It should also reference the specific paragraph of section 90 that authorizes the closure.
In practice, while resolutions consistently state that a meeting or part of it is to be closed with reference to the authorizing paragraph of section 90, the basis for the decision is not always specifically stated. Local governments should provide as much detail as possible about the basis for closing the meeting without undermining the reason for closing the meeting in the first place. This will help to limit speculation,increase public trust and enhance the credibility of the local government.

https://bcombudspers...Governments.pdf

[Mike K.]

It's just happening too often, that's the problem. It really began to ramp up during the Fortin era, if memory serves correct.