Not mentioned in this article :
The owners of the Parker Lands have launched a $30-million lawsuit against the City of Winnipeg, which accuses four senior city officials of abusing their power.
In a statement of claim filed Tuesday morning, companies linked to developer Gem Equities accuse the city’s planning, property and development director John Kiernan, chief planner Braden Smith, senior planner Michael Robinson and permit administrator Martin Grady of abusing their public positions. The lawsuit also names the City of Winnipeg as a defendant, which the developer claims is liable for alleged misconduct related to the proposal to redevelop the site as “Fulton Grove.”
“The lawsuit sets out a number of specific instances of what the plaintiffs say are deliberate, unlawful conduct,” said Gem Equities lawyer Kevin Toyne.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges city officials denied hearings on the proposed development plans, refused to process applications related to it and otherwise acted in “bad faith.” The lawsuit alleges “the sloth, incompetence and negligence of city employees was sufficient to thwart and delay the Fulton Grove development.”
Sounds like Yew Wood !!
6 comments:
It should be noted that all members of Tofino Council were disciples of Smith during his reign here. Some are still on council.
Let's talk about the work that Smith, as planner, and then CAO in Tofino, did to help smooth the path toward the creation of a LWMP, and the eventual construction of a liquid waste treatment facility.
HE DID NOTHING!......
.......Except to entangle the District into a hopeless legal battle with local developers, which ended up costing the taxpayers tons of money.
Good riddance to him.
The council members that supported his actions, likewise, should be long gone.
And lets not forget the staff members that he "trained", that are still here carrying on his legacy. Do we really need a "manager of sustainability"?
That Mr. Smith cost the taxpayers and residence a fortune is quit correct. $400,000.00 in wasted housing initiatives, that only lined his own pockets. Failed stalled and fruitless development proposals that deprived the public of housing opportunities and the district of a fortune in fees, Dcc's and property taxes etc.
But his legal shenanigans cost the tax payers of Tofino not so much. The UBCM insurance program covered most of the Disticts losses. So the whole province paid. It was like Christmas for Mr. Smith. Playing with House Money. The fox left in charge of the hen house. He thought his "rope" would never come to an end...his sense of empowerment and entitlement seemed to know no bounds. But it did come to an end, as the list of legal losses and entanglements climbed, he left when he knew there was no future for him anymore. When awareness of his faiure and his behaviour was creeping into the public domain, and in disgrace when his contract would not be renewed. Probably the worst public official that Tofino has ever employed and it is a long list to be head of.
I don't believe that Mr. Smith actions are as nefarious as they are inept. He chooses to slow the process as he has no idea what he is doing. The best action by the inept is to actively do nothing, then you can't make the inevitable mistakes that the inept are bound to make.
To 9:12, Ha Ha. What would, secretly striking something off a document and lying about it and then using the absence of that thing on the document as proof of the applications deficiency, sound like to you. Is that inept or is that corrupt. Is that someone being an "a" hole of just asleep at the switch.
Or how about in another situation, claiming the District has no documentation on a certain matter and it was therefore never in existence. But when a copy is produced by the applicant on District Stationary with the signatures of District officials. Instead of saying "Oh perhaps there has been a mistake", he accuses the applicant of withholding important evidence and criminal behaviour. Of course the problem for all liars is that one lie necessarily requires another, and then another. Mr. Smith was very active in his position, unfortunately much of it was outside his authority and not for the purpose of good. Certainly not for the public good and as it turns out not for his own, either.
I will accept both, incompetent and corrupt, but way beyond simply "inept".
It seems that the court also was of that opinion.
Post a Comment