SOC revamps website

August 9, 2006

angryStop Our City has updated its website to include new barbs, false issues and circular arguments: Check out the FAQ.

They do a better job of giving the actual facts about the master lease agreement, but some of their reasoning is still screwy.

First example:

1. SOC complains about the process that led to referendum being on the Sept. 5th ballot.

Q: The Petitions were delivered to the City on May 24, 2006. The Referendum date was not finalized until July 13, 2006. Why did they take so long to set the referendum date?

We don’t know, but it is another example of the behind the scenes manipulations that have been involved with this project form the start. The true answer lies in the hearts of the City Council and staff. However, it appears that the Referendum process was manipulated in order to bury the Referendum on the September 5 primary ballot. This gives the proponents of the project a huge advantage reinforcing the image that the CMPA is running the show. Again this points out the flaws in this process that allowed for the looting of the CRA trust fund to build this project and the citizen loss of control of our Trillium waterfront.

2. But later they boast about the referendum not costing the citizens anything because it’s on the Sept 5th ballot. Estimates from Supervisor of Elections ranged from $80,000-$100,000 for a seperate ballot.


Q: Won’t the citizen forced vote cost a lot of money?

No! The referendum is going to be placed on the September 5, 2006 primary ballot. There will be no additional cost to the City. Even it the vote had been held when it was supposed to be held, the cost to the taxpayers would have been minor compared to the ultimate cost to the city if the project had been allowed to go to completion.

Marty and Charlie, is the Sept. 5th ballot a good or bad thing? Or will you just tell us after the vote?




One Response to “SOC revamps website”

  1. Can't wait till Sept 5th Says:

    my personal favorite of late…”The City has set the Referendum and buried it on the last page of the September 5, 2006, Primary Ballot.”

    the City didn’t get to pick the location of the referendum on the ballot. stafford has to follow laws governing placement of ballot candidates and issues. and the issue is on the last page of the ballot…but it’s also on the first page – per stafford, it’s a ONE page ballot!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s