It was interesting sitting in courtroom 101 last week listening to some of the testimony from our Mayor, the City Administrator, the Director of Legislative Services, the former Director of Planning and Development, and the present senior planner. The process was tedious as the lawyers built their cases brick by brick.
Former Director of Planning and Development, Tim Whitehead was anything but kind to his former employers or his former staff, but he did admit on the stand that he (and by inference the City) was responsible for some of this debacle in the first place. Then we had Rick Page, Director of Legislative Services, and the Mayor, Wayne Wright, denying any responsibility, and pointing the finger at each other for this mess. Following the Mayor and Rick Page, we listened to the master of the dodge and weave, City Administrator Paul Dominato, deferring all responsibility to others as he decreed he was either not involved or had no input.
As I listened to the testimony unfold I was struck by one thought - no one in New Westminster is in charge. The City operates in spite of those at the top. At the end of the trial, the judge in this case will have to decide who is telling the truth. But even if the City wins the case, the citizens of New Westminster have still lost.
Blair Armitage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Thanks for the overview of this case.
Several thoughts on this. Where in the heck is the main stream media?
Both papers had some isolated reporting on this, but nothing with any depth of thought. I guess the MSM is not different from the rest of the city, nobody seems to care.
Second, your comment that nobody is in charge, the appearance of this is a result of deliberate attempts to pass the blame elsewhere. Where else but in New West could you see a Mayor and the Administrator both blame others for the whole sorry mess. Now that's leadership.
This whole debacle was orchestrated from the Mayor's office, and done through his lapdog, the Director of Development services.
It is interesting that two years ago, it was Mr. Armitage who as a delegate in chambers told the council of the day of the extreme dysfunction in the development services department. Several planners had left, and they sure were talking after they landed in their new jobs. Shortly thereafter the Director of Development Services tendered his resignation, and as the facts came out later, he was $150G richer for it.
The madness continues with the Pier Park price tag and lack of due diligence,but then it did serve it's intended purpose, it gave the Mayor an election announcement.
With all of the contradictory evidence given under oath, the Judges ruling on this one will be very interesting.
Thanks again for taking time out to present an overview, much needed given the sorry state of the MSM.
Interesting.
You are wrong in your title of the department you call Planning and Development Services.
It is called the Department of Development Services. There is no Planning. Literally or figuratively.
The only planning that is done is by the developers, and that is, to whose campaign are they going to contribute?
Very interesting comments indeed indeed! If the city is found guity in this trial and the public once again has to foot the bill, can crimminal charges be brought against those responsible. Why was the city's former lawyer not called to the stand?
So we pay the city manager 200 grand a year and he denies any involvement or input? Why are we paying him for? Mr. Daminato and Mayor Wright should both have a very good look in the mirror, I don't like what I am seeing!
The former lawyer for the City would have been in a client/solicitor relationship with the city. This would preclude him from testifying.
It would not be very wise for any city to do business with him if he would end up on the witness stand after being the solicitor for that city.
Given that he was summarily dismissed by the city, he would probably have loved to be able to testify. This probably would not sit too well with his spouse, who is the Director of Development Services in New Westminster.
What do you get when you cross the Three Stooges with Watergate.
It's funny you should ask that fine friend.
The answer, of course is, "the Top Floor of New Westminster City Hall.
To To Brianna, thanks for the response. My husband and I have a friend at city hall, I am going to ask him what he thinks of all this. Some not quite right here and this needs to be investigated further.
This is all interesting stuff.
Some of the material coming out is quite disturbing.
Where can one get a look at the testimony or a transcript of proceedings?
It is interesting to drive by the area that used to be the Windsor Hotel, the old tram turn-table building (current Sally Ann building)and the previous Sally Ann building (complete with murals), which is currently being demolished.
There is no question that, in appearance, the area has benefited from the development.
Market conditions dictated that this would, to some degree, happen.
However, what should not be lost is the degree to which the old Salvation Army building (the one with the murals) is tied in to the Windsor block debacle. The word debacle is accurate here, given the testimony in the case of P.S.D. Enterprises Ltd. v.City of New Westminster and Whitehead S.C.B.C. Action No. S070992, Vancouver Registry.
The old Salvation Army digs, located in a heritage building nestled in against the skytrain station suited the S.A just fine. They had no intention of moving.
Despite repeated attempts by the adjacent developer and the City, to dislodge the S.A., they held fast.
The ante kept getting upped, and finally, with the added value generated by the relative skyscraper in the Windsor site, the City and involved developers were able to put together an offer that the Sally Ann simply could not refuse.
Mission accomplished. At least on that part of the puzzle.
The other part was accomplished by, under threat of expropriation to facilitate the Civic Centre, removing all of the owners from properties at the foot of eighth.
street. This never was a viable location for the Civic Centre, but hey, who cares, it worked.
At the trial, both the Mayor and the Administrator stated that they had no knowledge of any of the dealings or involvement with the properties involved in the court case. Testimony from others refutes this.
So now you know why some developers donate huge amounts of money to political campaigns.
to Inquiring Minds:
We have been making inquiries to secure the transcript of court proceedings and we will be making them available ASAP.
We will also be keeping a close eye on the verdict, including the judge's reasons for findings.
The case required more time than was allocated and as a result the case was adjourned until Oct. 12 for three more days. Oct. 12 will be set aside for testimony from individuals involved in the liquor licensing end of things and Oct. 13 & 14 set aside for closing arguments.
After that, it is expected to be a couple of months until a verdict is rendered.
Did you guys know that the developer that did the tower on the Windsor Hotel site is now proposing a tower on the other end of Columbia St.?
Wonder what kind of a sweetheart deal there is in the offing?
Besides, the DCC's need to keep rolling in so that we can finance the $100M partial park on the waterfront.
What's up with all of the testing being done again, at the park?. I thought it was all done and said to be contained and not as bad as previously anticipated.
I'm no lawyer but it sounds like Walia has a good case, especially on the claim of negligence. He should have never been allowed to speak before council about the 12th Street liquor store.
Someone should have stopped him before he said a word. It's not as if they've never had to silence a delegation before because a matter is between third and fourth reading.
Also, the day after the first public hearing councilors continued to receive emails from residents and business people about the liquor store. How is that not contaminating the public process?
That's right Good point!!
It's almost as if there was a collusion of silence going on.Imagine this, they want to make it look like a version of "Who's on First", but maybe the whole thing was let to happen.
How can so many people who know better remain silent?
I live in the new condo that was once the Windsor hotel site. We have a beautiful view of the river and the pier park. Every day I watch the all the contractors working on the new pier park. I am a little concerned as well with all the new testing going on for contamination; I too thought it was finished. There appears to be a lot of asphalt and debris going into the river as the big excavators work, I hope this doesn’t harm the salmon or other marine life.
Why is it that you guys have a much better handle on this than the two local newspapers?
For those with Memories, occasionaly not me, however I think back 3-4 years while the Moody Park, West End residents and 12th Street Merchants, on two occasions were dragged through Hell over this issue by both parties. This case had nothing to do with gaining a liquor store on 12th. It was about cleaning up Downtown Waynesville and a Liquor Baron trying to profit on his hotel AND his liquor License. If I were the judge I would throw this case out and send both parties back to their playpens.
Post a Comment