The development proposal for Rampart/East Hill Lands from Summit West Developments is now in the hands of the RDEK….or is it? What was proposed exactly? City Council (except Bob Whetham, Angus Davis absent) agreed to a proposal that they had not actually seen. Well, that is not quite right. They had seen a proposal, but that was not the same proposal that came to them at the Council Meeting of October 3rd. That proposal was new and verbal and only presented during that meeting. We are told that the Chamber of Commerce wholeheartedly endorsed the same unseen development proposal. Did the Chamber know something we didn’t? Because the only proposal seen, the one included in the council package, was not the same one that was presented to Council on that Monday meeting. So what precisely was the Chamber endorsing? The unread proposal was not objected to by most of Council, endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and moved on to the RDEK. First reading was passed 9 to 6 by directors who accepted the recommendation of a council who had not actually read this proposal but voted on it anyway. If the proposal is a different proposal than that originally proposed to Council does that mean this newly written proposal will come back to Cranbrook Council once more?
Hmmmm.
Fact or Fiction...what exactly do you write. You have now cast aspersions once again and that are fiction. "We are told..." implies you have not verified your information but chose to publish it. To add "wholeheartedly" also is an incredible stretch of the actual fact. Please do some due diligence before publishing such twisted versions of facts & reality. Also look up the words "libel" and "slander"
ReplyDeleteWe agree in this case the facts seem fictional but these are the facts as we have observed them. The Chamber’s endorsement was verbalized at the Council meeting of October 3rd and this was the comment that came in from Sean Campbell, Chamber President.
ReplyDeleteCouncillor Pallesen expressed the endorsement of the Cranbrook & District Chamber of Commerce at my request. She generously agreed to do so. As an organization representing nearly 500 member businesses, the Chamber welcomes new investment.
This has the potential to become a most serious matter if it is shown that the reporting on it by the CLC is correct.
ReplyDeleteIt is time for the incumbent mayor and council to some clean and make all the facts surrounding this matter available to the public before the election.
The citizens of Cranbrook deserve no less from their elected representatives.
That statement does not jive with what you published. "The Chamber Welcomes new investmnet..." vs your published comment "We are told that the Chamber of Commerce wholeheartedly endorsed the same unseen development proposal" has two different meanings. Seems to me you stretched and added a little additional content to create yet another conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteIn addressing Sheldon Isaman at his delegation to Council about his development proposal on Oct. 3rd. Councillor Pallesen said, "Cranbrook District Chamber of Commerce would like you to know they are behind you. They are looking forward to this moving forward. Good Luck"
ReplyDeleteI believe the main point is that Cranbrook Mayor Manjak and city council, excluding Bob Whetham and Angus Davis, supported a development proposal without having read it thoroughly. The chamber has also supported this proposal I believe just on principle rather for the exact contents. This speaks volumes as to the mindset of council and the chamber.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that the incumbent councillors who supported the motion, excluding Councillors Whetham who was opposed, Davis who was absent and Schatschneider who is not seeking re-election, who are seeking re-election - Pallesen, Scott, and Wavrecan who is running for mayor, - need to fully explain the entire matter to the citizens before voting begins.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that no one is really clear on the position of the Chamber. Has anybody considered calling the Chamber office for some clarity. It doesn't seem out of place for an organization with a mandate to promote economic growth and investment to support development, anyway.
ReplyDeleteThreats of libel and slander don't change what happened at the council meeting. Council did indeed approve the development with little more than a verbal assurance from the developer. No need to worry as I believe the developer will face much more stringent and thorough examination from the regional district where the influence of the chamber is tempered by regional directors who will hopefully listen to their constituents. It's called democracy and it's time to elect some councillors who actually know what that means.
ReplyDeleteThe City did not approve the development as you stated in your previous post They chose not to oppose it. Please get your facts straight. The city does not have the authority to approve this development it is an RDEK decision where they have reached out for consultation and comment
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the Chamber position is now available on the Chamber website. www.cranbrookchamber.com
ReplyDeletePerhaps the CLC would like to state its position as clearly.
Why is the tactic of the CLC to imply wrongdoing, accuse individuals and groups of failing to properly carry out their responsibilities, question motives, suggest proper procedures are not being adhered to, claim that no one is listening, complain that things are being rammed through the system, and create conspiracies? Why not state a clear, reasoned position on this development or any other topic and defend your position with facts. If the CLC is opposed to the development of the Summit West lands then say so and the debate will be about that. As opposed to why the Chamber says this or that or whether the interpretation of the OCP is narrow or broad. You have no credible argument when you don't have a clear position or goal.
ReplyDeleteThe editorial is not about how the CLC feels about this proposal but how the council supported a development with not much more than a verbal description. The RDEK, who believes in democracy, is willing to give it a fair hearing but we know that this development is dead on arrival.
ReplyDeleteThe presumption of victory or failure hardly stands up to the test of true democratic principles. Still my question goes unanswered - why should this development fail if the developer is moving forward in good faith.
ReplyDeleteI totally understand the message that the CLC is delivering, and the silence is deafening now from the councillors who supported the referral and now fail to explain their decision. Let's hear from Councillors Pallesen, Scott and Wavrecan (now running for mayor). The position of the chamber of commerce is irrelevant.I am also not concerned about the CLC position. I want to hear from those who want to be on the next council.
ReplyDeleteWe thank everyone for their comments. This conversation is now closed.
ReplyDelete