It gets worse, city staff were actively misinforming, and restricting public access to information. They refused throughout to answer yes or no questions. Example in Council Meeting: Q: did the city do any engineering studies to identify a fix to the "problems" that currently exist (leaks, etc)? A: there were several repairs made over the last several years by OSEG. (Perhaps I could climb up and caulk a few Joints like OSEG has done and bill the city?) There is No answers to pointed questions over and over. Public consultation was only virtual, you wait for an opportunity for a question, then pose it and staff then muted microphone after the question, then staff make all effort Not to answer the question. They then move on to the next person. No way to clarify the question was nor answered!
Thank you, Neil. This is a very clear exposition on a now very troubling aspect of a very troubling proposal. This needs to get out into the public discourse right away.
It gets worse, city staff were actively misinforming, and restricting public access to information. They refused throughout to answer yes or no questions. Example in Council Meeting: Q: did the city do any engineering studies to identify a fix to the "problems" that currently exist (leaks, etc)? A: there were several repairs made over the last several years by OSEG. (Perhaps I could climb up and caulk a few Joints like OSEG has done and bill the city?) There is No answers to pointed questions over and over. Public consultation was only virtual, you wait for an opportunity for a question, then pose it and staff then muted microphone after the question, then staff make all effort Not to answer the question. They then move on to the next person. No way to clarify the question was nor answered!
A legal analysis of Canadian law proved we will never get it back unless the current owner triggers the sale. Also, city policy states the city needs to declare the land "surplus" to current and future needs, which eliminates any argument to get it back. This link is to the conclusion of the legal analysis that proves previous owners do not have repurchase rights even if an agreement exists: https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/1991CanLIIDocs197#!fragment/zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_10/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zhoBMAzZgI1TMAjAAYAlABpk2UoQgBFRIVwBPaAHJ1EiITC4Ei5Ws3bd+kAGU8pAEJqASgFEAMo4BqAQQByAYUcTSMD5oUnYxMSA
Wow. Even worse than I thought possible.
What a beyond "WOW" moment... will the deceit of the citizens of Ottawa ever end?
Thank you, Neil. This is a very clear exposition on a now very troubling aspect of a very troubling proposal. This needs to get out into the public discourse right away.