Friends  of  the  Cawthra  Bush

• Home Page • Table of Contents • News Flashes • Chronology •

YouTube  site
where my videos are posted

Pages  of  Special  Interest;

• Defense Fund for Donald Barber •

• Flowers with Wings are Butterflies • Photo Gallery • Sound Chip Gallery •

• End of Suburbia & Continuous Communities as the Solution - JOBS for LIFE • The Culham Brief •

Some point and some questions that come to mind regarding this SURPRISE you are getting a sewer main in the “Tree Preservation Area” &

    This has been quickly pieced together from what I have been informed of.  Due to matters concerning the Cawthra Bush, have not had the chance to be more fully involved or to review the documents.  Much of the wording is from letters, E-mails and news releases & articles and quotation marks are not always used properly.  I is usually Therese Taylor speaking generally but my wording, comments and documents are mixed in.  In the dated events section many items are left out but can be found fully where they are listed on the main page for this matter.  Hope to have got the dates right and events in reasonable order.  Emphasis by way of underlining or bolding is added.  This is still a draft unproof-read work.

    About the general mind set of the City.  The term “woodlot” is often used, it means a place where trees are cut for firewood and construction material.

    The forest does not official have a name.  Its been called the Britannia forest or Bidwell woodlands.  It's a one hectare Natural Area between Douguy Blvd. and Bidwell Trail, north side on Britannia just east of Creditview Rd.  With no other forest to speak of in the area the City feels it is a good idea for get rid of as many of Mother Natures air filters (trees & forests) as it can for its profit.

    It was the warmest of times, it was the worst smog-alert times.  It was the age of Smart Growth, it was the age of urban clear cuts, it was the spring of Kyoto, it was the winter of two thousand premature deaths,  we had everything to gain, we had little support, we had the world at our feet, we were trampling upon it.  There are developers with large profits and a Mayor with  a wrinkled brow on the throne of Mississauga; there were a mother with a large passion for trees and a son with wrinkled lungs who was developing asthma.   Bad air from the U. S.   Bad air from coal fired plants.  Children coughing and choking due to bad air.  A couple thousand people dying prematurely each year due to bad air.

    Obviously Dickens,  a provincial political leader has said recently, "child asthma is up 20 per cent in the province. We shouldn't have to live like we're in Dickens' London."  "An acre of trees absorbs 2.6 tons of carbon (pollution) annually and generates enough oxygen daily for 18 people. A mature leafy tree produces enough oxygen in a year for 10 people.  "(Toronto Star , B4 Nov. 2, 2002)  Clearly, trees, are our first line of defence. There are so many vital reasons to preserve these sacred elements of our  future: air quality, the prevalence of asthma, ballooning health care budgets ,wildlife preservation,  global warming, even just the aesthetic affect a forest has on our sense of well-being.  Our environment is going to hell in a hand basket and more people need to stand up for it.  When are our elected officials going to wake up and smell the toxins?  To quote or paraphrase Therese Taylor.

    Don B. agrees, the over development of Mississauga and Ontario in general is ripping the lungs out of children and ourselves.  That when we vote for certain politicians we maybe thinking we are casting a paper ballot into the ballot box but in fact it is a piece of lung from those we hold dearest, for the trivial promise of keeping taxes down, by way of over development.  Which means a general loss of health in the long term.  Is it really worth the pocket change to damage youth lives so much or do we rationalize it to ourselves that by thinking that polluted air, poison water and general ill-health will be just the challenge they need to build character?

    From the beginning, nearly everyone I (Therese Taylor), spoke to said it was a done deal.  From the Ward councilor to a neighbour-lawyer who prepares cases for the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), to the Mayor of  Mississauga, I was told there was nothing that could be done about it.  The clear cutting of  the one hectare woodland in my new neighbourhood. With a flight path directly above, a major road that stretched for miles with no other forest to speak of, a huge rolling landfill site close on the forest's heels, childhood asthma on the rise, and 1800 premature deaths attributed to bad air by the Ontario Medical Association, this didn't make sense to me.  As long as the mature trees, more than 400 of them, had not been severed from their roots, couldn't accept that nothing could be done to save these oxygen producing, carbon sequestering trees, many of them from the rare Shagbark Hickory family.

    The City's Community Services Department determined that it was not worth purchasing as it was a "remnant," even though there is a rare stand of Shagbark Hickory trees in the forest.  I don't know how the City can make such reckless decisions about our environment when it has so much $ in Reserve Funds, from 2000-2002 more than $600 million.  $430 million projected for 2003 and 2004.

    It was still a Natural Area even when it was sold to the developer.  There was an elderly lady on the property.  I believe her last name was Dowling since it was referred to as the Dowling Lands.  She sold the eastern part of the forest (the part that will be preserved) to the developer in the early eighties.  At some point they bought they western section of the property (no trees) and in 2000 paid $650,000 for 1.5 acres in the middle.  Seems
like a pretty good deal.

    The settlement agreement, between Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor and the developer, provided for the preservation of one rectangular contiguous strip of forest between Killaby and Britannia, opposite Carradine
Court, rather than two smaller tree preservation areas.  It meant a gain of about 36 trees and an increase in acreage of .32, about 1/3 more of an acre or preserves about 1/4 of the one hectare forest or about 40% of the woods or about .86 of an acre of mature tree/forest from the tree reservation plan passed by the by-laws on February 12th 2003.  Many praised the development company for giving up three housing lots to achieve the new design.  Councillor George Carlson, who represents the area, said the city changed some design guide lines to accommodate the new configuration of the development, and the "best part of the woodlot" will be preserved.  Carlson said. Asked about Taylor's criticism of the city, he replied: "I guess with 20-20 hindsight, we could always do things a little better."  This is of course before the sewer main inflicts its damage on the watertable and the rare stand of Shagbark Hickory Trees.  Bidwell’s main claim for environmental protection.

    The settlement agreement, also had two other clauses of note or the Devil in the details;
4. Fitzwood will provide Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor [“Appellants”] with a copy of any material it hereinafter submits to the City as part of the site plan process as it relates to the TPA;
&
6. The Appellants will not further object to nor delay, either directly or indirectly, the development of abovementioned Fitzwood’s lands located at Britannia Road West and Bidwell Trail.

    Mrs. Taylor says item 4 was not kept to as the sewer was a complete surprise to her but the developer says they are keeping to the deal.  Because the Harris-ment government passed a law saying people who lost in the OMB could be held libel for the costs of the other party, so Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor (who had no lawyer but who were trying to do the right thing for the community), were under pressure to settle or the developer could go after them for costs, tens of thousand of dollars.  By protesting the way the sewer planning was done the developer could say that Mrs. Taylor has broken item 6 of the deal and that could be very costly.  Justice is bought in Canadian Courts, the cost of which is both a punishment in itself but also to keep the “do gooders” out of the process and where they belong.  On the side lines, cheering on progress no matter how deadly it is to our children.

    Therese was outraged by our elected officials and City staff whose job it should be to do what is in the best interest of the community.  Especially after what Mayor McCallion  said in the public meeting on Jan. 7 2002:
"Mayor H. McCallion also advised that she did not wish the woodlot to be destroyed and requested that she provided a copy of the report that recommends that it not be preserved.  She stated that she was not aware of
the surrounding developments interfering with the woodlot and would like to see it preserved to its utmost.  She further stressed that she did not wish the trees preserved, but that the woodlot be preserved."  Indeed, there was no report that said the "woodlot" should not be preserved.  No follow up.  No Environmental Assessment.

    This evidence came to light after the deputation, after the Mayor told us that the only way to save the forest was to purchase it ourselves. Though 1 ½ acres of the forest had just been  purchased for $650,000 in 2000, a bargain for a municipality with $630 million in reserves, it  seemed unlikely that the developer, with city council at his side would sell, even if the community was able to raise the money.

    City Council approved in principle the application to amend the Official Plan to delete the "Natural Area" classification (made by the Natural Area by the Mississauga Natural Areas Survey) contained on Schedule 3,
Environmental Areas of City Plan as it pertained to the hectare forest on the property (Bidwell woodlands), allowing for the clear cutting of the majority of 409  trees.  But surely “approved in principle meant there was wiggle room for the municipality to change its collective mind, I naively thought.

    With advice of staff from Evergreen Common Grounds, 3 meetings were arranged, first with the Mayor, then with the Ward Councillor and a representative of the property owner and finally with the owner himself.  Evergreen's former Land Trusts & Conservation  Manager, Barbara Heidenreich identified the salient points of the case, gave advice on what tasks needed to be taken care of, the key information that needed to be
gathered and attended all three meetings.

    Barbara Heidenreich offered concrete options for preserving the site including ideas for revising the site plan, providing examples of other developers who preserved forests and substantiated the belief that subdivisions with forests are just as profitable to developers in terms of dollars.  Her extensive knowledge of planning and development and her knowledge of other cases kept us on solid ground.

    A call to the International Society of Arborists lead me to urban forestry consultant Philip van Wassenaer.  We spent a half an hour on the phone talking about the one hectare forest on the north side of Britannia near
Creditview.  Mr. Van Wassenaer walked the forest and later prepared a report on its state, a mature forest, 60 to 75 years old in van Wassenaer’s estimation, that contains a rare stand of Shagbark Hickory Trees.  The City claimed through the botanical report prepared and paid for by the developer that the forest was in poor condition and not worthy of saving, though that was not even the report's conclusions.

    I spoke to council to appeal to them to nudge them from their slumber to wake up and smell the toxins.  Leading up to a deputation which was made to Mississauga City Council, a petition objecting to the official plan amendment and to the rezoning of the forest from agricultural to residential to make way for 81 townhouses gathered 373 signatures in just two and a half days.  The Mayor dismissed the petition. The Mayor was asked at that time, how many signatures would make a difference and she said, basically what Councillor Carlson said (though he attached the number 10,000 to it, 1/10 of his constituency).  "It didn't matter how many signatures we got.  This was a done deal."  Therese felt a little like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz being dismissed by the all mighty and powerful.  After being told by the Mayor of Mississauga that nothing could be done by its council to prevent the final passing of the by-laws, a group of outraged citizens formed
Treesavers.

    Notes were made of what the Mayor had said at the public meeting because she did exactly the opposite when the by-law came before her.  She signed on the dotted line.  This meant to those there that she is saying one thing in public (for her public image, she wants to appear to be concerned about forested areas), but doesn't really give a fig about them nor her constituents, whom she is supposed to represent.

    Other notes about this meeting.  Use the Mayor helpful?  No she was not helpful at all. She was antagonistic.  While she sits in her smart chair, the Mayor shrugs her shoulders, and says an aerial map of Mississauga proves there are millions more trees in Mississauga than there were in the 1950s.  What she fails to mention is that there are millions more cars.

    Treesavers, was formed to determine what could be done to prevent the destruction of the one hectare forest in the Creditview/Britannia area of Mississauga.  Though we are still working on this case, members of Treesavers have pledged to stay involved and to continue to object to the clear cutting of trees in Mississauga.  Another application to develop forested land in our neighbourhood off Creditview has been posted and we have voiced our objection at the public meeting May 26th 2003 to the encroachment on the woodland.  We hope to impress upon our city council the importance of preserving our natural areas and will remain involved to ensure that every thing that can be done is.  Further, a moratorium on the clear cutting of urban forests larger than one acre is required

    The developer meet with Treesavers.  Twice in Dec. 2002 then again on Feb. 5th, 2003.  He offered two small tree preservation areas above a half acre in total.

Feb. 12, 2003

    City By-law - 0074-2003 - was passed by City Council.   A site plan was submitted to area residents that pledged to save 173 of 429 trees, 60 of them along the periphery of the property.  When Council approved the rezoning application February 12th 2003, the site plan included a tree preservation area that represented about one quarter of the forest.  Because our environment is going to hell in handbasket, I continued to lobby the landowner and the developer, hoping to persuade them to save at least ½ the forest and another 35 trees.  Only one of the other members of Treesavers, Susan Karranadjas shared my view that more should be saved and together we appealed the by-laws.  They Appealed to the OMB March 20, 2003.

    City By-law - 0074-3003, was Appealed to the OMB by a couple of very brave ladies without lawyers, Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor.

    Mandelbaum contacted those who had Appealed to the OMB to negotiate a settlement.

    Susan and Therese plus her oldest son and Linda Warth Fitzwood’s PR representative met once at Casey's.  The developer offered the TPA depicted by the site plan labelled Schedule A on the settlement agreement.

    Back and forth for two months they negotiated,  mostly by email trying to get Fitzwood to include the periphery trees along Britannia and behind the backyards of the current owners on Killaby.  In the end the landowner agreed to redesign the townhouse complex and nearly an acre (.86) will be saved by a decision ratified by the OMB.  The threat of having to pay the developers costs was the deciding factor in how much of the woodlands would be saved.  We are all still living under the curse of the Harris-ment government as they passed the laws that allow developer to collect costs from those in the community who dare to stand up to their greed and environmentally irresponsible plans and Appeal to the OMB.  The fear of these costs keeps people out of the Planning and Democratic process.

    Therese notes “I settled with the landowner in July because he said  if our appeal was dismissed that he would seek costs, which I understand can be prohibitive ($50,000 - $100,000).  Therese have been told this is probably the best deal they would get from the OMB, anyway.  Even though I feel the landowner was fair to us, I feel so angry with the City's position on  the case and feel muzzled by the settlement agreement.”  Therese and Susan Karrandjas are brave souls indeed but Therese is the mother of 3 young children and she has to be practical.

    The City claims it was directly involved in this matter or negotiations but events tell a different tail.  An interesting, if not strange event took place before the Settlement agreement was presented as signed in the last week of June.  A request was made by Therese to the City Forestry Department regarding the wording in #.2 of the Settlement agreement - The TPA will be maintained in accordance with the City of Mississauga's [“City”] current policies and practices applicable to such areas;.  The question was, what are the City's “current policies and practices applicable to such areas”?  Forestry staff told her that they could not release that information to Therese and that she would have to contact the City Solicitor, of all things!  This resulted in a 5 way conference call, including Susan, Therese, the landowner's lawyer and the City solicitor.  The answers were not provided at that time but the real question was why did the City and developer gang up against Susan and Therese over such a simple matter?

The signed Settlement agreement was received official June 30.   The OMB hearing at that point was scheduled for August 20, 2003.  Fitzwood's lawyer then asked the OMB to cancel that date, which the OMB agreed to.  Then the City solicitor asked the OMB to put the hearing back on for the public interest.  Sounds like the City was sometimes calling the shots at the OMB.  It wasn't till November 2003 that the hearing was finally scheduled for January 19th 2004.

    The “It's a Tale of Two Forests”, was written for Jo Davis Conference Coordinator for Kyoto & Sprawl.  Conference at Glendon College, York University.

    At City Council, during the “in camera”, portion the settlement agreement is accepted by the City of Mississauga.  Mrs. Taylor writes “Linda Warth has confirmed in writing that Fitzwood is proceeding with their "site plan based upon our settlement agreement."  Ms. Warth also told me in a telephone conversation that an in camera meeting of Mississauga City Council was held in September and that City Council accepts the settlement agreement.”  Clearly City politicians and staff were aware of the terms of the settlement agreement, so why would they not up hold it?

    One reason that the City would chose to get rid of its Urban Forest Management Advisory Committee (UFMAC) would be that its actions of allowing a sewer in a “Tree Preservation Area” would not be reviewed by them.  In politics you have to plan ahead and Hazel needs all the money she can get to fund her bid for a separate City.  Don B., I have Appealed to UFMAC and made the City changes it plans regarding environmental areas.

    The Solicitor for the City of Mississauga, Michal Minkowski, is quoted in The Mississauga News as saying: "The settlement is before the (OMB) for ratification....  The OMB can accept, reject or modify any settlement."

    In light of this, Therese E-mailed (Dec. 23, 2003), the City Solicitor to confirm the City's position on the agreement.  On Monday January 5, 2004,  his return email stated:  "With respect to the City's position regarding the settlement agreement reached between yourself, Susan Karrandjas and Fitzwood Investments, I confirm that Council's instructions are for the City not to oppose the settlement."

    Further Minkowski says: "As regards, then, the appeal in respect of the zoning by-law, I would not expect that portion of the hearing to be much longer than one hour, provided no other persons appear seeking to participate in the proceedings in opposition to the settlement.  Currently, I have no information whether or not any such persons will be in attendance."

    He goes on to say, “There is also a second component to the hearing currently scheduled before the OMB on January 19, 2004, which pertains to an appeal by Fitzwood to their site plan application.  This may or may not
require some additional time on the 19th. My understanding is that Ms. Warth together with her planning colleagues have been working on the numerous technical and detail related aspects of the site plan submissions for review and confirmation by municipal staff, but at the present time I do not believe that all the remaining information has been finalized.”, I (Don B.), wonder what that is all about.  Remember that the City is not offering Therese an insight into what she is agreeing to, no doubt as the City wishes to do an end run around the agreement with a sewer main.

    It' very difficult for a person like Therese to keep her mouth shut when she think the City has performed miserably with respect to this community and our Natural Areas.  She definitely feels muzzled by the upcoming hearing.  Therese had been advised to say as little as possible at the hearing and to just say "we agree,"  and to save any political comments till after the Chair has handed in his written decision.  In a better world the landowner would see the relevance of preserving the entire forest, but since our City can not see the relevance of it, we are barking up the wrong tree.  It's the about the City conduct she wishes to speak out about and planned to.  It was noted that certain City staff had attempted to deny Therese information or service, which would limit her efforts to be fully involved in the process.  Up to that point, the developer have behaved responsibly to our group, which is more than can be say for the Mayor or City Council.  “So I wish to behave honourably with respect to the agreement and the landowner.” Therese says.

    It is interesting that even though City Council has instructed the City Solicitor not to oppose the agreement and the landowner is proceeding with the agreement, the City delayed the matter for a further five months.

    How has this left Therese feeling?  She says, “I do intend to continue with my fight for the preservation of trees in Mississauga, but feel at this point that this battle is done. (As much as I pray for a miracle.)”  Therese shares Mississaugans outrage with how the City of Mississauga is behaving towards its citizens concerns about our environment and the preservation of our sacred natural areas, especially when it has so much money in reserve funds.

January 19, 2004

    The only Ontario Municipal Board Hearing held in this matter.  At the Municipal Hearing Room, Mississauga City Hall at 10:00 A.M. regarding the settlement agreement reached between Fitzwood Investments, the two
appellants.  Therese reports the joys of victory but they were all to short lived.

    I'm pleased to report that the settlement agreement reached by Fitzwood Investments, Susan Karrandjas and me has been ratified by an order made by the Ontario Municipal Board. The tree preservation area noted in the amended by-law provides for a rectangular, contiguous area that preserves .86 of an acre of mature trees opposite Carradine Court and stretches from Killaby to Britannia.  An oral decision on the amendment to the by-law was given at the hearing.

    The board adjourned Fitzwood's site plan referral to April 2, 2004.  We agreed to conclude the matter as long as it was understood on the record that the tree preservation area on the final site plan would not be modified from that which is reflected in the amended by-law.

    Member John Aker said that he believed that if this is what the other parties agreed to then he believed, they would carry out these plans. We commented that we merely wanted to ensure that we have dotted all our "I's" and crossed all our "T's".  Of course, we intend to appear again on April 2nd.  Aker said he would remember us and if we needed to seek party status then, we could request it at that time.

    One resident from Killaby did object to the settlement agreement.  She provided a two page statement about balance and said in it that "a proposal for additional small gains in preservation are at the expense of it's (sic)
immediate residents..."

    Certainly we would have wished for a tree preservation plan that would have preserved the trees behind the resident's townhouses as well as those of her three neighbours to the east according to the original plan passed
by the by-laws in February 2003.  Indeed we did our best to negotiate the preservation of periphery trees behind these town homes and nearly lost any gains in the negotiations.

    One of the points of the final settlement agreement stated: "The development of the balance of Fitzwood’s lands will be subject to the City's current policies and practices respecting the site plan approval process;” which, if I understand correctly, means that depending on grading, some trees along the periphery of the property may indeed be preserved.  Don B.- if only Therese knew how wrong she was.  At this point I would like to point out how people in the community who are doing the best thing for the whole community, get little help from the community!  She is not alone in suffering this and if the community pulled together, then the current outcome would likely have been avoid.  We should not blame Therese or Susan for not seeing the sewer main coming or other problems that have yet to show their ugly heads.  They did the best they could with little help from the City or the arm chair quarterbacks.

    We sincerely regretted having to make the choice between a preservation "arm" referred to as  Area A (.15 acre in area) in the settlement agreement or  a continuation of forest Area B (.47 acre in area).  We left the decision to an urban forestry consultant, Philip van Wassenaer.  In his letter of opinion regarding the settlement:  "The Proposed Area (B) is larger, contains more trees overall, but slightly fewer Shagbark Hickory trees. The Proposal provided for the preservation of one contiguous strip of forest between Killaby and Britannia, opposite Carradine Court, rather than two smaller tree preservation areas.  It meant a gain of about 36 trees and an increase in acreage of about 1/3 of an acre from the tree preservation plan passed by the by-laws on February 12th, 2003. Ecologically, this configuration is preferable as it provides one continuous forest block with considerably less edge than the previous configuration. This area will be easier to preserve effectively during the construction process."

    Further he stated:  "Having visited the site and reviewed the documentation you have provided to me, it is my opinion that the proposal for Tree Preservation provided to you by Fitzwood in the settlement agreement on June 30, 2003 is preferable to the originally proposed Tree Preservation Plan.  The new tree preservation area has less exposed edges and will be easier to effectively protect."

    Because of  the opposition to the settlement agreement,  Mr. van Wassenaer was required to give evidence at the hearing and later sent me an email in which stated:  "I felt really good when I left knowing that we had come together and helped to save at least a part of the forest . Considering the whole forest was slated for removal and approved I think this is really something. I have not seen something like this happen before."

    Certainly Fitzwood Investments, their representatives Mark Mandelbaum and Linda Warth, and their parent company H&R Development should be commended for being good corporate citizens.  “They seriously listened to the concerns of this community and responded favourably, not once, but twice, the second time, enlarging the tree preservation area by 36 trees and one third more of an acre,” said Therese Taylor.  “good corporate citizens”?  That was then, we all know better now.

    Though I was pleased that the developer made some serious concessions, I was terribly disappointed in the lack of leadership by the Mayor and Mississauga City Council.  Municipal budgets need enlarge the budget for buying and managing our forests. When are our elected officials going to wake up and smell the toxins.  In the meantime, more people need to stand up for it and can make a difference.

Nearly an Acre of North Mississauga Forest will be Preserved by Developer.

    Decision/Order NO: 0235 in PL030291     It is interesting that what the OMB posts on the internet is so lacking in details.  The Minutes of Settlement that ended the Appeals (OMB File No: O030055 & R030057), by Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor is not included, nor are maps etc., just bare bones.  That signing this agreement means those who Appealed would
be off the hook for the developer legal fees.  Maybe one reason why the City and the developers would drag this matter on for couple years, effectively forcing poor, well meaning people standing up for the community and doing the right thing, to sign a deal or face paying costs.

    In the wording of the settlement agreement it gives the City significant control over what will happen in the so-called Tree Preservation Area.

    Woman's crusade saves rare trees - Refused to accept demise of woodlot - Builder agrees to redesign subdivision.

    Activists save half of forest.

    Things were going so well and it appeared to be a victory for the little people but in the court of the Queen of Sprawl unseen forces were at work to undo the gains made.  The site plan that was initialled as part of the
settlement agreement did not indicate that there would be a sewer through the Tree Preservation Area.  No one from the City warned those in the community who were the interested parties, Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor about the servicing easement in the original by-law that was passed. And they were too green in these matters to have taken note of it or even to realize that was what they were going to do at the OMB, pass the old by-law with an amendment.  Trusting government is its own punishment.

    When work was seen to start around the Bidwell woodlands, it was first thought it was to removed the an old house foundation, old house on the property up until about a year or so ago.

    Soon the hoarding was going up and those who knew about where the “Tree Preservation Area” should be thought that something was wrong.  They were creating a path of some sort.   A called to Fitzwood did not result in the facts becoming known.

    A call from a City staffer that brought the full measure of the horror to light it was “the pathway for a sewer”.  You can image Therese's shock which is best expressed in the words from the media releases from June 9 & 23 ; “There was no indication of a servicing easement or a hole in the Tree Preservation Area.  Never in a million years would we have thought that a City law would allow them to do this,” says Taylor.”, “It's hard to believe they are taking this position,” and  “I naively believed that a Tree Preservation Area (TPA) meant that the trees in the designated area would be preserved, that the TPA was locked. It didn't occur to me to think they'd cut down rare trees to put in a sewer.”  “It's terribly frustrating for concerned citizens who have been given a big run-around during this entire process.” van Wassenaer says.

    It is right in this time frame that the decision was being made regarding the sewer main route and Therese had been asking questions about it BUT still neither the City or the developer would tell her what was going on or invite her to participate.  Supply the documents that the settlement agreement called for, to her, especially not that.  The map I have showing the sewer main route is stamped “APPROVED”, by the City of Mississauga, June 4/04.

    City Planner Karen Crouse has informed Therese that alternate routes were discussed but not what they were.  So, clearly, it is possible for the City to intervene on the community's behalf and to determine an alternate
route.  In fact it would be the City that approves the location of the sewer main and we should not lose track of that fact.  Nor should we that the developer would never dream of trying to force a sewer through a “Tree Preservation Area” if the City did not give its blessing.  The City wanted the sewer there and it did not want those who Appeal to the OMB to be part of the sewer route selection or even know the details of it.  Until it was too late (July 5-04, trees are gone but the digging has not started).

    Further evidence to show the City's effort at keeping the public in the dark; “In an email to Taylor, City Planner Karen Crouse explains that site plan approval “is a gentleman's agreement between the municipality and land owner respecting the layout of structures and site works on parcel(s) of land.” and “Crouse admitted that “Staff met on several occasions with Fitzwood and its representatives to discuss the appropriate location of the easement. After much discussion, the easement was placed in the least disruptive location …”  “Least disruptive to who or what,” questions Taylor.”  A “gentleman's agreement” to keep taxpayers out of the hair of developers is more like it, lest they be given a fair chance to Appeal this nonsense to the OMB (again).

    A call was made by Therese to Councillor Carlson on this matter but not returned before the June 2/04 letter to the Mayor.  Like many Mississaugans Therese has a hard time finding the right words to describe their Councillors helpfulness but his own words describe best how they feel about serving the public “I guess with 20-20 hindsight, we could always do things a little better.”

    In the Mayor's letter, she tells Therese that it was her own damn fault for what has happened “it fell upon you, one of the persons who appealed By-law 0074-2003 to the Ontario Municipal Board, to have raised an objection during your appeal.”  Having studies the Mayor for many years it is interesting that she use to be known as the people's Mayor, who cared about the little people.  Guess it is true, the older a person gets the more they can be seen as they truly are.

    The City Solicitor, Michael Minkowski noted that it is not the City's responsibility to ensure that the terms of the settlement agreement are upheld.  How odd, something that is being done for benefit of the community, that the City agrees with and City has no interest in seeing happen?  What has Mississauga come to?

    The developers point of view?  From the Toronto Star June 28/04 article “The location of the 30-metre by 4.5-metre trench "is consistent with the agreement we entered into, and we are honouring our commitments in
all respects," Fitzwood spokesperson Mark Mandelbaum said” Yeah, to preserve trees you cut them down, cut into the roots of those you do not cut and put in a pipe whose trench will likely lower the local water table, how stupid of us not to know that.  So glad to have you inform us ignorant taxpayers on how to preserve trees and how to be honourable. As far as I (Don B.), am concerned, I can hear the City and the developer laughing - Bwaa Ha Ha Ha - then saying we can interpret the By-law & agreement any way we care too, use what ever cock & bull story we care to justify it, as you are too poor to take us to court and buy justice.  So shut up, put up and get in your place, Foolish Canadian Peasants!

Some environmental concerns;

     The traditional way to deal with areas that have environmental significant features (like the rare Shagbark Hickory Trees), and therefore have protection, is to slowly destroy its environmental significant by removing
or killing off those features.  Then do an environmental assessment to document its lose and to justify the removal of what ever protection there was.  Open the way for the development to do what you thought was not going to happen like build in a so-called “Tree Preservation Area”.  In this case not far fetched at all and I wish I had the maps to show are the details at this point.

    How the sewer main in the “Tree Preservation Area” (TPA) can lead to the long term decline or death of the trees in the TPA;

A).  The nearly 30-metre (100 foot), long sewer trench through the TPA area will not only destroy at least a dozen of the rare trees in its path, it will most certainly affect the viability of the trees for 4.5-metre (10 to 15 feet), on both sides of the trench, along the whole length.  “Root loss, root disruption, a drying of the soils, and a local draw down in the water table are  inevitable,” says Philip van Wassenaer, urban forestry consultant.

B).  The trench that the pipe is placed in, can become the path of least resistance for ground water to flow in and some times is called the “French drain effect”.  This disruption could drain or lower the local water table which will adversary affect the health of mature trees the most, if not kill them.  These changes to the ecology of the area are to a broader extent then just where the trench has been dug.  H&R should present any plan they have for this sewer pipes long term environmental impact.

C).  Wind throw is also a problem in any case where trees that were surrounded by other trees are suddenly exposed, they are more likely to fall down in a storm.  That the sewer route will open an area between the subdivision and the older one for the wind to be channelled through and concentrated in.

D).   Susan and Therese were shown a map, that noted at path between the new H&R subdivision, to the older one or Killaby Dr., they were told that was an error on the map and would not be build.  The sewer main route follows almost the same path.  The path through the forested area has already been cut but the question is will this hole in the forest heal or will it become a path?  I think that even if a path is not put in, formally, to begin with, the volume of traffic along this route will make it roadway.  That the damage from that point will widen and spread unless decisive action is taken to keep the area from becoming a well used short cut.

    This is a perfect example of how the City and developers can get what they want using a round about way.  Agree to not install a path, to save trees and the integrity of the woods, then say but there has to be a sewer there.  This creates the space that people will pour through creating the on-going damage that was agreed would not happen.  Any one looking at the maps can see why the City and the developer would want some kind of road or path through that area (which does show on many of the maps, it's a selling point!

E).  How is the site going to be maintained to keep it from being pounded into the ground by over use by the sudden increase in the local population caused by the townhouses?  So, where is the plan for the long term maintenance of the “Tree Preservation Area” to ensure it will remain environmentally significant?

    In the settlement agreement it states; #.4. “Fitzwood will provide Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor [“Appellants”] with a copy of any material it hereinafter submits to the City as part of the site plan process as it relates to the TPA;”   Therese got nothing regarding the planning for the sewer main in the TPA and any reasonable person would know that would be important to her but in doing so she was kept from being involved in this decision making process.  Clearly #.4 was written to ensure that Therese would be involved in an on-going basis regarding the TPA.

    H&R has signs up around its sales office saying "expect more".  How is it reasonable for the public to "expect more" when H&R can't even keep to a simple agreement to send copies to Therese about where the sewer main was going.  The developer could try and say there was no paper work what-so-ever send to the City, that would be interesting to read the account of.  No matter how you cut it, the developer is seen using Weasel Words.  It appears the main purposes of getting the settlement agreement signed are for it to be used by developer to silence the community opposition, not to be used by the community to hold the developer accountable and create a false sense of security in the community, that would allow the developers & City plans to move forward without further scrutiny.

    The traditional methods - in a year or two after the damage is clear to all and trees are dying.  A study will be done to document the damage and exaggerate the rest (as has already been the case in this matter), then the City and developer in on voice will say - Oh well we tried but the trees could not be saved.  Councillor Carlson said “The woodlot wasn't rated highly by the city's foresters because it is small and surrounded by development, making its long-term prospects for survival poor”, is this not setting the stage for the self-fore-filling prophesy?

    Then develop the area as originally intended (if it can be, would be nice to have maps of the area), or something else undesirable.  Do not forget that a sewer main is just the first Devil in the details that has come to our attention, more could be on the way!  It is not just the cutting down of trees that we should be concerned with, that is just the thin edge of the wedge, that spells the end of the Bidwell woodlands.

    The case for the City of Mississauga being a third party to this matter, if not legally, then morally is a strong one.  Two sections of note in settlement agreement are;

2.   The TPA will be maintained in accordance with the City of Mississauga's [“City”] current policies and practices applicable to such areas;

3.   The development of the balance of Fitzwood’s lands will be subject to the City's current policies and practices respecting the site plan approval process;

    Then there is the fact that the City is the approving body for where this sewer goes and the wording of the settlement agreement it gives the City significant control over what will happen in the TPA.  At the very least,
it could have told Therese of what was going on as the City knew she was an interested party and this is a Planning matter.

    Mrs. Taylor writes “Linda Warth has confirmed in writing that Fitzwood is proceeding with their "site plan based upon our settlement agreement."  Ms. Warth also told me in a telephone conversation that an in camera meeting of Mississauga City Council was held in September and that City Council accepts the settlement agreement.”  Clearly City politicians and staff were aware of the terms of the settlement agreement, as they considered the signed copy in a secret Council meeting.  They judged the terms agreeable, so why would they not up hold them?  After all they are part of an OMB Decision/Order?  The section of greatest importance is:

4.    Fitzwood will provide Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor [“Appellants”] with a copy of any material it hereinafter submits to the City as part of the site plan process as it relates to the TPA;

    Was that part of the settlement agreement kept?  This is what Mrs. Taylor has to say; “The settlement agreement that we signed with the landowner included a site plan which depicted the location and the dimensions of the Tree Preservation Area.  In fact when the site plan was initialled, Susan persuaded the landowner to “minimize encroachment as much as feasible.”  There was no indication of a servicing easement or a hole in the Tree Preservation Area.  Never in a million years would we have thought that a City law would allow them to do this,”.

    Do not forget that this settlement agreement (which I read “the proposal” to be), and its effects were noted 3 times in the OMB Decision/Order, that ended this Appeal regarding the Bidwell woods.  The City should consider up holding both the letter and the spirit of the OMB decision and the settlement agreement that the OMB Decision/Order is based on.

2.     The proposal achieves a balance between the development of 78 row dwellings and a larger tree preservation area.

3.     The proposed tree preservation area provides an appropriate buffer between the proposed row dwellings and the existing commercial plaza.

4.     The proposal represents good planning.

    To a reasonable person the facts of this matter are; the City knew of the terms of the agreement; knew they were a part of an OMB Decision/Order; that the City was an involved party to the devolvement of the area in question and in the protection of the TPA; the City knew that Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor were members of the community who had a keen interest in the TPA; that generally under the Planning Act people who have expressed an interest in a certain developments should be kept informed, so they can make meaningful input; that #.4 of the settlement agreement clearly spells out they are to be kept informed, THEREFORE; involved in activities regarding the TPA.

    If there is not a legal onus on the City to make sure the “Appellants” got the copies of the material that the settlement agreed to in a timely fashion so the “Appellants” could be a part of any process, in a meaningful way, that involves the TPA, then there would be a moral one.  After all, why provide the material if not to involve a person?  What efforts did the City make to ensure the settlement agreement was being up held?

    It would be morally, if not legally wrong for the City to allow one party of an agreement to ignore its contractual obligations in a process that the City is party to.  To allow any party to gain, in any way from not displaying the actions that reasonable person would conclude as adhering to the settlement terms is unjust and it should not allowed.  The City would be sanctioning such conduct that violates the intent of a OMB Decision/Order, that governs this matter.  Why is the City or the Mayor in this case, so keen on violating the spirit and the intent of this deal?

    So, as the City knew the terms settlement agreement, that there is an onus on the City to make sure the settlement agreement is up held and all they had to do was ask a couple of people, how hard is that?.  So far there is no evidence of the City making any such effort.  The fact is it was not up held has been brought to the City's attention - THEREFORE; the City should restart the sewer main route selection process, which the City controls and with Therese's full involvement.

    The developer should not be allowed to gain in any way from not obeying the terms or intent/spirit of the settlement agreement that settled the OMB Appeal.

    Why would City staff (Planning), not help the taxpayers Appealing to the OMB about what could happen in the “Tree Preservation Area” so that all aspects of this matter could be dealt with before the signing of the settlement?  So there would not be unpleasant surprises that make the City like so bad?  What kind of respect does this display by Hazel's team towards taxpayers?  Would not a reasonable person see that this whole mess could have been avoid and a better deal for more trees could have been made if the City had supported community efforts once they became known?  I read the statements made towards Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor and they sound like legal code while the speakers laugh up their sleeves, knowing Susan and Therese are easily fooled by way of their misplaced trust.  The real story of this case is how low down and dirty those who are involved, especially our elected officials and their staff, can spare no effort, to not treat taxpayers honestly and fairly.

    Why did the City not include those who Appeal to the OMB to be part of the sewer route selection?  Now, really how hard would it have been for the City or her Ward Councillor to tell Therese about the sewer, when it was being decided?  Yes, why would City staff not tell either Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor that sewer could be going in there as soon as the City and the developer started to discuss the matter?   Yes how honest and professional is that knowing they have a special interest in the area?  And for what reason would they leave her out?  Maybe to make sure they could not rally community support again?

    What is the real nature of the “gentleman's agreement” that City Planner Karen Crouse notes regarding site plan approval.  It “is a gentleman's agreement between the municipality and land owner respecting the layout of structures and site works on parcel(s) of land.”  Is the “gentleman's agreement”, one to undo the gains made or to keep the public out of the affairs affecting their community?

    Why is the City so willing to take developers to the OMB but not willing to up hold an existing deal to ensure the survival of a “Tree Preservation Area” that is of benefit to the whole community?

    Why does the City or more precisely, the Mayor, think we are so foolish not to know that it would be the City that gives finial approval as to where the sewer main goes and that the developer would not try to force such a matter in the City of Mississauga?  That we can be easily fooled otherwise.

    The Mayor is quoted as saying “We followed the letter of the law 100 per cent,”.  Hazel McCallion has also said "I  guess I'm identified as a people's  mayor.  I'm very concerned about people.  I find the big guys, can look after themselves.  It's really the little businesses and the little people who need help.  I'm a grassroots mayor, a people's mayor.  I believe in an open-door policy and open government ... I feel it's very important that the people feel they can talk to the mayor." & “I'm out there with my people and the people know me." So why is the Mayor sitting back and letting the City and the developer beat up “the little people who need help”?  What is in it for her, that she does a complete about face?

    Elected officials are to protect the public's interest and up hold the promise of good government in Canada.

    Part of that is respect for taxpayers.  With that judge what is going on in Mississauga.

    Why would the developer make a deal then obviously, to a reasonable person, not keep it?  Yes we know they will say they are - the old, admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusation bit.  But the facts are so clear.

    How can the developer say it is keeping to the settlement agreement and not have supplied “Susan Karrandjas and Therese Taylor [“Appellants”] with a copy of any material it hereinafter submits to the City as part of the site plan process as it relates to the TPA;”  Remember to keep to the spirit of the deal at the very least, the developer (or even the City for that matter), should have informed Therese about the sewer main, as clearly the section quoted is about keeping her involved in the decision making process regarding the TPA.  If the developer is going to hide behind the strict legal meaning of the wording, then think very carefully about buying any houses from them - you could get screwed in the same way!

    Why has the developer not explained to Therese, in detail, how it is that they are keeping to the settlement agreement regarding the sewer main in the TPA?  The developer knows she is not a lawyer, can not afford one.  So why not avoid all the misunderstands by simply explaining the matter in great detail?  Maybe they can not come up with a reasonable story?

    Why does Fitzwood and H&R not fear damage to their company's reputation from these outrageous actions?  I think the developer would never do this unless they had the blessing of the Mayor and feel safe hiding behind her skirt.

    To the Mayor - Proposed Sewer Easement Through Tree Preservation Area

    Dear Madam Mayor,

    A servicing easement is being planned at the Britannia/Bidwell Trail site that will go directly through the Tree Preservation Area established by a settlement agreement with the landowner Fitzwood and ratified by the
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

    Cutting a 4.5  by 30 metre pathway through the Tree Preservation Area will destroy a dozen or more Shagbark  Hickory Trees and will seriously jeopardize the long term viability of at least a dozen more of these rare trees, plus many others. Clearly this is unacceptable.

    Please confirm that you will support the efforts of this community to uphold the spirit of the settlement agreement with the landowner and support the  long term viability of the remaining trees from the Britannia woodland with the Tree Preservation Area as indicated by the site plan submitted with By-law 0074-2003, ratified by the OMB.  Therese writes.

    As far as Don B., is concerned begging for mercy from the Queen of Sprawl regarding environmental issues is like casting pearls before swine.

    First Legal Loophole News Release.
“It's simply unacceptable for people who are paid out of the public purse to take the position that they have no responsibility to enforce or abide by a settlement agreement entered into by a developer and members of the public, working in the public interest.  This is particularly so when the members of the public were forced to do the job of the city after it refused to take up its responsibility to protect the urban environment,” an outraged Taylor says.”

    “The City is in a position to have a strong voice in the gentleman's agreement and require that the easement be placed somewhere else. It's one thing to say that this plan is allowed for in the by-law, but it doesn't mean that it's the only course of action.”

    The above is totally correct, where is the accountability?  This news release is far more hard hitting than most media articles (especially the Mississauga News or the Missing News as many call it), as it asks the most
important questions and states the clearest facts of how those in City Hall should be act.  She counters the City statements beautifully but if it were not for my web-site who would have the benefit of reading her words
as she wrote them?

    The Mayor's bad news letter regarding - File: C.01
    [ Don B.’s comments in square brackets. ]

    Mr. Minkowski from the City's Legal Services has provided you with a full explanation of the status of the sewer easement issue.  Put briefly, the Zoning By-law establishes legal rights for a landowner.  The Zoning By-law in this case, By-law 0074-2003 as enacted, allowed for a sewer easement through the tree preservation area.  As one of the appellants of By-law 0074-2003, you would have been familiar with the contents of the By-law.  I am advised

[ Interesting that the Mayor does not wish to be personally involved and cares only for what staff say.  She also does not note the City has to approve what ever the “landowner” does on their property. ]

that not only did you not raise any objections to that part of By-law 0074-2003 which allows for the sewer easement through the tree preservation area, but, at the hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board, you stated that you consented to the By-law being approved subject only to a change in the maximum number of dwelling units and to a change in Schedule I.  I am further advised that the Ontario Municipal Board approved By-law 0074-2003 as it appears now based in part upon your explicit support.  Should you have disagreed with the portion of the By-law that allows for a servicing easement in the preservation area,

[ Clearly the Mayor is blaming a non-lawyer taxpayer for not being a lawyer or spending their life savings to hire one.  Not the Mayor that most people think Hazel is. Notice how she talks down to Therese, “City's Legal Services has provided you with a full explanation” and “has explained to you”.  It is like the Mayor saying you are wasting my valuable time, it has all been explained to you, are you so ignorant that it has to be repeated?  Get lost and do not come back without a lawyer, peasant!  ]

    In view of the provisions of By-law 0074-2003, the City is not in a position to now deny the landowner those rights established under that By-law.  To do so would be irresponsible on the part of the City as it would place the City in jeopardy, legally, at the hands of the landowner and expose the taxpayers of Mississauga to financial repercussions.

[ This is a political intelligence test to see how easy to fool you are. Hazel has for decades been able to say it is not a good business decision and people eat it up, without question.  A one trick pony.  As noted else where it is wrong in fact and morally wrong as well.  But while we are on the subject of the City unwisely spending money, there is the matter of the City taking the Airport to court over trying to collect payments for building permits at the airport and how many millions did that cost the City?  Covered up I hear.  Any ways if you review my questions regarding this matter, it is not the money that is at issue, it is the POWER.  The power to keep taxpayers out of the planning process and make examples of those that do by destroying what they hoped to gain.  Does the Mayor almost sound like she is gloating?  Resistance is futile! ]

    Regarding the settlement agreement with the landowner, my understanding is that Mr. Minkowski has explained to you that the City is not a party to the settlement agreement signed between the landowner, you and Ms. Karrandjas.   As a result, the City is not in a position legally to seek redress on account of a private contractual matter to which it is not a party.  It is up to the parties themselves to deal with their own contractual matters.

[ In fact this is wrong and the City is a party to what goes on the property in question and the settlement notes the following;

2. The TPA will be maintained in accordance with the City of Mississauga's [“City”] current policies and practices applicable to such areas;

3. The development of the balance of Fitzwood’s lands will be subject to the City's current policies and practices respecting the site plan approval process; ]

    Once again, thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.
    Sincerely,  HAZEL McCallion

[ The Mayor sounds so much like a 2 dimensional character in a predictable movie or a cartoon, where the evil doer or so-called evil genius, brags and explains how their evil plan is going to unfold and the hero can do nothing to stop it as they are tied up (#.6 of settlement agreement), and soon they will meet an unfortunate fate as well (pay the developer costs).  Maybe I say this as I researched Hazel or maybe she has said there is a “coup” out to get her and I am a part of it! ]

[ cc to other City staff to let them know the Royal degree. ]

    To Mayor & City staff - your File C.01/Sewer Through Tree Preservation Area

    Dear Mayor of All The People of Mississauga,

    I acknowledge receipt of your email dated Wednesday June 16th,

    I find your response to my concerns about running a sewer through a Tree Preservation Area inadequate and legalistic.

    I have not asked you to deny the landowner the rights established under that by-law. I have requested that you assist the landowner in abiding by a settlement agreement that was negotiated in the public interest.  Isn't the
decision as to where the pipe is laid a municipal one?  Why can't the city route the sewer around the Tree Preservation Area?  City Planner Karen Crouse has already admitted that "alternate locations were discussed."
As long as the developer's property gets serviced, it shouldn't matter to him where the pipe is laid.

    Why is it that we could not count on the City to draft a by-law that took into consideration the settlement arrived at between ourselves and the developer?  Although it is the case that the Tree Preservation Area would never have been created if we had left it to the City to protect our natural area and environment - you would have allowed the woods to be completely levelled -  the attitude that lies at the base of your position is breath taking.  It is no wonder that only 19.9% of eligible citizens in Mississauga voted in the last municipal election.

    Essentially what you are saying is that citizens who participate in public affairs must retain lawyers to ensure that politicians and officials being paid out of the public purse are honouring agreements that have been negotiated in the public interest.

    Thank you for making it so clear where you stand.
    Sincerely, Therese Taylor

    Don B., Hazel hates taxpayers who do anything other than praise the City of Mississauga and the Mayor.  To hold up the mirror of truth to Hazel McCallion is to become her enemy.  People get what they want from Hazel by making themselves useful to the Mayor and singing her praise, it is sad to say.  A taxpayer must know their place before the Queen of Sprawl.

   Legal Loophole Drives Sewer Through Tree Preservation Area.

    A sewer trench planned for a Tree Preservation Area that a developer had promised to set aside in Mississauga will destroy at least a dozen rare trees and affect the viability of dozens more. A servicing easement contained in the original by-law and overlooked by co-appellants Therese Taylor and Susan Karrandjas at the OMB hearing last year means that the developer H& R has the legal right to create such a pathway, said City Solicitor Michal Minkowski.  Mayor McCallion concurs.

    “The settlement agreement that we signed with the landowner included a site plan which depicted the location and the dimensions of the Tree Preservation Area.  In fact when the site plan was initialled, Susan persuaded the landowner to “minimize encroachment as much as feasible.”

    The nearly 100 foot long trench through the preservation area will not only destroy at least a dozen of the rare trees in its path, it will most certainly affect the viability of the trees for 10 to 15 feet on both sides of the trench, along the whole length.  “Root loss, root disruption, a drying of the soils, and a local draw down in the water table are inevitable,” says Philip van Wassenaer, the urban forestry consultant who helped in the effort to save the woodland.  “The Mississauga Site Plan Process is flawed. There's something wrong if the process allows trenching to occur through an area that has been designated as a Tree Preservation Area,” van Wassenaer says.

    “We did not hire a planner or a lawyer to go over the by-law with a fine tooth comb, because we had a settlement agreement with the landowner that depicted the Tree Preservation Area.  The OMB is supposed to be a forum for citizens to address planning matters,” says Taylor.

     “It's simply unacceptable for people who are paid out of the public purse to take the position that they have no responsibility to enforce or abide by a settlement agreement entered into by a developer and members of the public, working in the public interest.  This is particularly so when the members of the public were forced to do the job of the city after it refused to take up its responsibility to protect the urban environment,” an outraged Taylor says.

    “They have choices and they have chosen to allow a trench to be cut through the Tree Preservation Area. They could still intervene if they wanted to because the trees are still standing. So could the landowner Mark
Mandelbaum or the developer H&R, for that matter. They could choose to abide by the spirit of the settlement agreement they made with us rather than pointing to the legal loopholes they may use to cut down more trees.”

    Resident shocked by destruction of rare trees

    As it turns out, the rezoning bylaw that was approved contains a legal right-of-way for the trench that she didn't know about, and there's nothing she can do to stop it. About a dozen hickory trees, a Carolinian species
rare in this area, have been cut down and others may be affected by the disruption to the water table, she said.

    "I naively believed that a tree preservation area meant that all the trees in that area would be preserved," she said. "We did not hire a planner or a lawyer to go over the bylaw with a fine-tooth comb."

    The location of the 30-metre by 4.5-metre trench "is consistent with the agreement we entered into, and we are honouring our commitments in all respects," Fitzwood spokesperson Mark Mandelbaum said

    Don B., sounds like Mark Mandelbaum wants to be a politician or the next Mayor of Mississauga, if you get my meaning.  To translate his words to their true meaning, no one has the money or lawyers to stop us so we can do as we please, as the Queen of Sprawl has given her blessing.

    "We examined a lot of different ways to deal with this subdivision at the time we made our agreement, and the plan was settled in accordance with what we agreed to.  She (Taylor) had agreed to respect the fact that we
had come to an agreement. Quite frankly, we do believe the company is doing whatever it can. We saved an awful lot of trees (about one-third of a hectare), a lot more than we were obligated to based on municipal requirements, and it would behoove Therese Taylor to accept that," Mandelbaum said.

    Don B., did you pick up on the thinly veiled threat from the developer by repeatedly mentioning the agreement?   “She (Taylor) had agreed to respect the fact that we had come to an agreement”, sounds like the developer is going to beat up Therese with #.6.  None-the-less statements like this, “Quite frankly, we do believe the company is doing whatever it can.”, are 100% true, the developer is doing whatever it cares to.  And will continue to call black, white know, as the City does and following its moral lead, admit nothing, deny everything, say the opposite, wildly exaggerate the efforts made, etc., etc., etc.

    Mayor Hazel McCallion told Taylor that to interfere now would place the city in legal jeopardy and could have financial consequences for taxpayers.

    Don B., it is so odd that so many people blindly believe what ever the Mayor says, with it is undeniable that Hazel McCallion is a politician and we all know what they are.

     I believe this may be the last email I am permitted to write to you on this matter.  The landowner's lawyer, Leo Longo, told me Friday morning July 2nd that he was sending me a "stern letter" in the mail from his client.

    Longo told me that they (I assumed he meant the landowner, Fitzwood) had received a call from the Mayor's office to say that the emails had to stop.  I know that several of you have responded to my request for support and this is what he was referring to.  (Thank you for your efforts.)  And because of these emails,  he said I am to receive a "stern letter" from his client, though we didn't discuss the contents further.
.....

A shocking turn of events!  Hazel McCallion says kill the messenger to end taxpayers opposition, so get ready for a "Stern" Letter from Landowner's Lawyer.  Will it be the shut up or be sued letter?

This is a must read E-mail with its Despair & Broken Heartiness that she feels while writing what could be her finial attempt at finding reason and support in this worthy cause.

Now Accepting Pay Pal
for
Donations to aid my efforts in every way.

About this Web-site & Contact Information • Petition • Contributions