|
Friends of the Cawthra Bush & Greater Mississauga Area
• where my videos are posted Pages of Special Interest; • • Other Table of Contents; |
|
From
the Internet - my comments are at the end, click on the highlighted text
to go to specific comments, which will have numbers in brackets e.g.
[1]
When you read what could be Therese's last communication, can you feel the Despair & Broken Heartiness she feels while writing what could be her finial attempt at finding reason and support in this just cause? As Canadians we own it to her and our Democracy, to carry on and E-mail all those we could help and contact the media, to encourage them to report this. This that should not be allowed! It was communicated to Therese that it is the Mayor - Hazel McCallion - that is telling the developer to unleash the legal dogs upon those who exercise their Democratic rights and express their feeling about how a developer is conducting their business in Mississauga. "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." Yes, Hazel McCallion is saying kill the messenger to end taxpayers opposition. If nothing else it proves that the E-mail campaign [Click here], is having the desired effect and should be increased -- get all your friends to join in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From: Therese Taylor <tmtaylor@idirect.ca> Subject: "Stern" Letter In the Mail from Landowner's Lawyer To: undisclosed_recipients:; Dear Friends of the Britannia Woodland, 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. The landowner believes that I have breached one of the terms of the settlement agreement I made with him. Namely, the final point stated: "6. The Appellants will not further object to nor delay, either directly or indirectly, the development of the abovementioned Fitzwood's lands located at Britannia Road West and Bidwell Trail." However, I said to Longo that I was not objecting to the development of Ftizwood's lands, but was merely seeking compliance of the first term of the settlement agreement which states: "1. Fitzwood Investments Limited ["Fitzwood] agrees to the Tree Preservation Area ["TPA"] as depicted on the attached Schedule "A"; Schedule A is a site plan of the development, but there is no indication of any sewer and certainly there is no indication of one through the TPA. Furthermore, I said to Mr. Longo that it was his client who has not lived up to term 1., nor has he lived up to one of the other terms of the agreement: "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." I had asked for an updated site plan a couple of times since the OMB hearing in January. Moreover, at the end of May, I contacted the PR rep from Fitzwood, Linda Warth, because I could see there was a problem with the way the trees were being fenced off for construction. At one point there was a notation on a site plan of an asphalt sidewalk through the TPA. Warth assured Susan and I at the OMB hearing that this was a mistake. When I expressed my concern about the pathway to Warth again at the end of May, she emailed me to say: "I can asure (sic) you that there will not be a sidewalk within the tree preservation area." And she left it at that. It was a return call from the Tree Permit Inspector for the City's Forestry department who advised me that the pathway was for a sewer. In fact, I did not receive a copy of the final site plan until June 16th. The site plan had already been approved June 4th and the tree permit to cut the trees was granted June 3rd. The site plan I received June 16th clearly shows, for the first time, a sewer running through the Tree Preservation Area. A couple of weeks ago, one of the woodland's supporters suggested to me that the likely scenario would be that the landowner will tell me to stop reporting facts about the case or else he will sue. Until I receive the "stern letter" this is only speculation, but the landowner's response to my final plea June 24th "demanded" that I live up to the terms of the settlement agreement. The conversation I had with Longo last Friday was amicable. I spoke to him about "acting in good faith," as this was a term he used at the OMB hearing, and said, based on the above, that it was his client who was breaking two terms of the agreement and who was not acting in good faith. He said he would call his client Monday morning, July 5th. The landowner's
efforts to preserve trees remain mixed. Indeed he was persuaded in
this case (City File OZ 01/031 W6) to preserve more than he was required
to by law. However, besides the issue of the sewer, this landowner
was permitted by the City of Mississauga to clear
cut another much larger four acre Natural Area at the east end of
this subdivision
Questions remain about the City's role in this. At the January 7, 2002 public meeting: "Mayor H. McCallion also advised that she did not wish the woodlot to be destroyed and requested that she be 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." Why did the Mayor back down from this strong statement made in public? Why did the City choose not to be a party to a settlement agreement made in the public interest? City Solicitor Mike Minkowski says in an email to me June 1, 2004: "At no time was the City a party to those discussions, nor to any agreement entered into by you and Fitzwood." However, in an email to me January 5th 2004, before the OMB hearing he said: "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." Does this really mean that Council would instruct the City not to oppose a settlement that they had not seen? Why couldn't the City reroute the sewer around the Tree Preservation Area? City Planner Karen Crouse admitted that "alternate locations were discussed." 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 in the public interest? I wanted you all to know this ahead, so that you would know why my emails on the matter have stopped. Though I believe the principles of democracy, as well as a few dozen rare trees are at stake, I'm afraid I'm not prepared to risk being sued. There are too many other bigger environmental battles to be fought and I want to place my time, energy and knowledge gained to the best use. I apologize for the length of this email, but do believe it might be my last on this matter and want to remind you of the significant details before I am silenced. Sincerely, Therese Taylor Reach-out and make a difference PLEEASSE SIGN OUR PETITION It will make a difference! Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top [ Comments by Don B. - ] |
|
Your
Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated
Now Accepting Pay Pal
•
|