Why am I shocked? Well after all this community went through with the promises of Billion dollar projects, and all the glitz and glamour that came with them.
Last night at the G+P meeting Councilor Mitchell brought forth the following Notice of Motion.
“Whereas the council of the Mun of Crowsnest Pass passed a policy motion CL.013 in the fall of 2010, regarding endorsement policy for member of the council.
And whereas this policy may affect the goodwill of the community towards new endeavours of commercial or industrial ventures and instill the feelings that the community wishes to discourage new development.
And whereas this type of policy is covered under the Mun. Government Act in sections 172 and 173 (pecuniary interests) as quoted when this policy was brought forward in 2010.
With the above in mind, I Larry Mitchell, councilor of the Mun. of Crowsnest Pass will move or cause to be moved a motion to rescind this policy CL.013 2010 at our regular council meeting on April 19,2011.”
This policy came about because the former Mayor of the Crowsnest Pass appeared in a promotional video for a developer that created a lot of noise in the area over the last five years.
Councilor Mitchell understands as full well as I do that sections 172 and 173 of the MGA refers to pecuniary interests, (which in lay mans terms means no member of council shall participate in any council duty that they may gain financially from personally). That’s why we had a councilor for eighteen months who left the chambers every time an issue with this company came up, because he did have a pecuniary interest. He collected a paycheck from this company.
When this policy came forth it was explained in great detail to Councilor Mitchell that there was a perception real or not that when a municipal politician appears in a developers promotional material, it lends credibility to that project.
Nobody wants to discourage new ventures and it may be appropriate at some point for the community and its leaders to assist in the promotion of new development, marketing plan, economical initiative etc.
But prior to our Mayor appearing in this video was there a discussion in council? No
Was council as a whole given the opportunity to discuss if this was a good idea? No.
Now this is what the policy states “No member of council shall be permitted to endorse any project, appear in any promotional video, pamphlet, or publication of any type, or attend shareholders meetings acting as a member of Council without first presenting to Council the reasons for such involvement and receiving Council’s approval”
SHOCKING isn’t it? in simply terms it states that for a member of council to do this he/she would have to bring it to council first and receive approval. As a member of the council at that time I found out about this video months after it was released when a local real estate agent emailed it to me.
I would like to hear Councillor Mitchell or any other politician explain to the public how this policy, “discourages new development”
36 comments:
This move should say to the residents of CNP that dealing with developers can be a very lucrative opportunity. What do politicians NOT understand about perception? Bridgecreek would not have gotten as far as it did without the help of politicians to provide the perception of above board dealings with the investors and the community. Later the help of politicians to coverup the crap that was going on with River Run - no development fees etc. Take care.
Maybe Larry is taking up where Gary left off.You know it is hard times out there for us retirees.Hey Larry what video are you going to star in? Bridgecreek the sequel?????
Corruption with a capital "C"!!
I think it is something we have to be very cautious of and Chloe is right as stated above. Wasnt counciller Taje still promoting Bridgegate during Rum Runners days shortly before things came unravelled. One man cant serve two masters. The public would view him as a counciller promoting the project and thats the problem with perception.
After what this town went through why would you not discuss this kind of stuff with Council?
Irwin was not only in a video but was also at shareholders meetings. He was introduced as the " Mayor of the CNP".He endorsed the project like a salesperson would, trying to encourage the investors to stay invested. Why would he do these things.Was he doing it as he beleived he was doing what was in the best interest of the CNP.Or was he a paid employee (kickback perhaps ).Or was he an investor looking out for his own best interest.Because we do not know the answer to these questions, you can see where the conflict of interest is.I think it is reasonable to leave the bylaw as it is.If you have nothing to hide then you present to council where you are going to appear and approval should be given.
As for Gary Tage, he should have resigned as soon as he started working for Bridgecreek.Sure he excused himself but he still would of had some influence.Conflict of interest, thats all it is.
I remember that Dean was asking for some money from Bridgecreek for developmental permits and how Irwin and others would say that it was not nessasary.
Transparency is a good thing.
So a new developer comes to town, gets very interested in the community. It requested that the Mayor appear in a promotional video. The Mayor states that he needs to get the approval of his council on that.
At that point developer takes issue and walks away from the community???
Get real Larry.
Humans make mistakes.
Fools repeat them!
Larry probably drives by River Run every day looking to see if any building have started yet?
Are you still wondering when the lady is coming back off vacation to reopen the sales centre?
Wake up Larry
Definitely kickbacks were taken in the past. Give it time. It will all come to light.
Wake up Larry.
I have now sat here and read this policy that Mitchell wants to remove probably a dozen times.
I can not see for the life of me what the big problem is.
It requires any member of council that wants to work promoting a development to talk to their fellow members of Council.
Am I missing something here is it more complicated than it appears?
Dean did Irwin have Council approval to go to that shareholders meeting?
Larry (The sensible one)
I have no problem with "Larry Mitchell" or "John Irwin" appearing in a video. I do if it's "CNP Councillor Mitchell" or "CNP Burgermeister Irwin".
You only use your official title and the name of the organization on official business. I think that is a standard rule for both government and private companies.
Last poster you are right if you look at the policy it clearly says acting as a member of Council.
If you go back to the Bridgecreek video, it does not introduce Irwin as local resident, businessman, Doctor or Investor, it clearly states "Mayor Irwin".
If you listen to the shareholders meeting he is also introduced as "Mayor Irwin".
Do you think Larry will try to repeal the policy for deposits prior to a development starting?
It would seem to be the next logical step.
Shame on any Councillor that supports this, I can not see anybody in their right mind giving this any consideration.
After all these guys create policy right?
I have a copy of the sales video that was used at the seminars in Calgary. Not the one that many have seen, but the one they used to entice investors at the various hotel seminars. Mayor Irwin is on the video touting the developments and what a great investment it is...so secure.
then the narrator (Rick Purdy)cuts in with the following statement.."YA GOTTA LOVE THE MAYOR OF THE CROWSNEST PASS".
Oh boy...little did I know there was a large scale plan to divest so many people of their savings and dreams...Thanks alot Mr MAYOR! GOTTA LOVE YA!
I won't be going anywhere. Things will be made right. I don't care how long it takes.
Dean I think its time to run the video again.
If anyone would like a copy of the seminar video, just let me know your mailing address and I'll just burn off a copy for you. It desribes all the money there is to be made on the CNP developments. How the money is to be made. How secure the investment is..and oh yes, MAYOR Irwin is front and center. I have it all saved for the upcoming litigation..
Where do my readers send there address to?
rumple14@live.ca
Do you think this council will bring in a policy to make sure this does not happen again.
Whoops we have one already!
Bridgecreek sequel? Don't laugh good folk of CNP. You have underestimated the enormous ego that drives Bradley. Key word here - DRIVES. This whole episode smells all the way to Ontario for me. There is big money involved, even bigger dreams. I know Bradley and there are no rules of fairplay. Bradley is former family, I sat across the dinnertable from him for many years. Take good care, he is not finished with CNP yet.
a monster...
People like Irwin only get away with the crap they do because of people like Mitchell.
Who protects the municipality? shouldn't that be people like Larry.
From an investor, who lost a lot of money on this group.
The municipality, especially its leadership should have some empathy for people like us.
If another group comes along that wants to involve your leaders in promoting a venture. At least with this policy seven minds with the advice of administration will judge the situation.
Not one man being buttered up over a few cheap scotchs at the bunker in Pineview.
It will be so interesting to see which councillors support Larry.
It will certainly send a clear message to myself on how much influence Irwin as over this new council.
Alan
Maybe Bruce the policy maker will make a policy to deal with the policy.
Maybe we can call it the "Council Policy to have Council members and administration develop policy that replaces redundant or out dated policy, or creates policy where none is to be found"
Or for short "CPCMADPRODPCP"
Seriously now I have not seen a copy of the "Advertising Policy" on the municipal web site.
Dean was that not going to be the first policy the "Policy Commitee" was going to deal with?
What is the hidden agenda behind this motion? The original group wanting to resurrect the CNP projects hoping to suck in both the new council and investors? Rumour has it that $65 million went into a bank account/accounts somewhere. Caymens perhaps? A lot of money folks, most unaccounted for at this point. Megalomaniacs do not go quietly into the night. Take care.
Remember last summer Bradley tried to get a condo project going at the sales centre.
It was stopped by the previous council but Mitchell supported it ????????
As a person who has been to the authorites several times, i'll try my best to see that Mr Mitchell is added to the "watch list" along with a couple of your other wonderful local ex politicians.
Anom. 8:28
I don’t think you have to waste much time putting Councilor Mitchell on a watch list. Those of us who know him, understand he doesn’t do much thinking on his own; he just does what he is told. As another observer who worked with him put “Larry hasn’t had an independent thought in over 20 years”
Sounds like Irwin is controlling things still through the use of his proxy vote!
ahh we'll just throw him on there just for fun..Maybe he'll spill the beans.
Obviously the mayor put Larry up to it, which now brings his credibility into question. Is the present mayor but a puppet to the former mayor, who is still the puppet master?
Questions that beg answers?
I will be very upset if Larry tries to take away the requirement for security to be in place prior to developments starting.
That will send a very clear message
This from the svior jON mINTOFT, WHO WAS GOING TO SAVE THE RIVER RUN DEVELOPMENT AND REPAY THE INVESTORS THEIR MONEY...BIG SURPRISE. CALL THE COPS NOW.
I am trying to resolve various issues with Olympia.
Olympia has no interest in deferring their o/s management costs re
the Trust Indenture.
Olympia is not in the business of Restructurings and sucking unpaid
Trustee fees.
I have been struggling with Vistas, for months.
The $15M Vistas investors funding is overwhelming.
Had Bradley and Becker not appropriated, what I believe is,
the costs of development, so no financing would be required,
Vistas would be successful, notwithstanding the 08 worldwide
financial meltdown.
**There are no Vistas funds to operate going forward, and
for management costs, consultants and other significant development costs
prior to construction or
to resolve, most importantly,
the substantial funding/financing for Vistas share of the RR
subdivision utilities servicing/financing.
And, I have no structure to enable any new investors/developers to
become involved.
AND, I have too many other Crowsnest Lake and River Run problems to
deal with.
**By my recent review of the Vistas corporate minute book,
I NOW understand that things re Vistas
are worse and very complicated unfortunately.
That is, apparently,
B&B transferred a few other lots into Vistas corp.
**And, such lots are encumbered with a $4M blanket mortgage over
various corps lots in RR.
This becomes another Restructuring.
In result, I am having a problem trying to easily restructure
Vistas1 investors.
Unless Macleod Dixon can figure out some simple structure in Vistas,
which also has regard to the Invesco investors, separately,
it is too complicated.
And, I am not expecting any resolution.
As STONEBRIDGE gets nothing from such efforts,
I have to punt.
After over a million in costs,
I cannot do this anymore.
So, I have advised James today that Vistas Corp will consent to the
Vistas1 foreclosure.
And, Vistas corp will consent to other requisites which
reduce Vistas1 unitholders foreclosure costs, such as an appraisal
and typical proceedings costs.
That is, simply go directly to foreclosure sale.
I also told James that I will otherwise cooperate with potential
investors bids for the Vistas1 lands,
as I can, in order to maximize recovery for investors, as it is.
Based on the RR Springs Colliers appraisal, recovery will be
disappointing.
$1-1.5M,
if any stink bidders are prepared to take the risk of buying
property that has
suspect servicing/municipality servicing agreement defaults and
other development issues defaults.
I wish things were different.
Regards, jon
Post a Comment