And A Letter To The Sentinel Review


I don’t have a lot of faith in the people that have been elected into their official capacity in our city.  We are no doubt governed by professional and paid liars.  

Prior to the municipal election in 2006 we were regaled with tales of how the public would be informed of the spectacular crash of Woodstock Info Energy by the man who wished to be mayor and now is, Michael Harding.
His shallow promises of accountability in the face of Info Energy’s demise has soured my impression of him. We were promised that there would be a complete investigation and airing of what went wrong. Some local elected officials(mayor included) played important roles while sitting on the board of directors’ of this city owned but arms’ length business that failed. Money was lost, the taxpayer was throttled and it appears that whatever went wrong will be buried until a new administration ejects the old one from office. I imagine that in another year most of the evidence pertaining to Info Energy will have disappeared from wherever it is hidden from public scrutiny at present.(somewhere in the dungeons of city hall)  
Now we have a situation where the elected officials in their official capacity have offered once more to the people a promise of a public meeting that will examine nothing more than what what we already know; the city intends to drive this project down the throats of the people despite obvious objections to the project by a vast majority of people in the community.
If you don’t believe that a majority is against this public waste of money, then do a public vote on the matter through a referendum if you are so sure of your position.This is the only way that we will be able to determine the levels of support for or against the project. And on top of this, I would suggest to the Art Gallery board that they attempt to raise some money on their own without assistance from the taxpayer, and I would suggest 25% of any planned project should be raised on your own.
Not only will this show that the gallery actually believes in itself, it will show a degree of public interest if they are able to raise the money. I for one will agree with Fred Freemans’ recent letter that the gallery should remain on the site it enjoys at present. It is of historical significance, fits in beautifully with its’ surroundings, has access to parking and is not located to the for profit methadone clinic that does nothing to reduce addictions.(but sure makes a hell of a lot of money)
A public meeting is a complete waste of time if the people in charge are not interested in hearing the alternatives to their plan. Let’s put this to a public referendum, after all it is all of our tax dollars that they intend to spend here, no matter what the source of funding is. That money still comes from everyones’ public purse.


  1. Anonymous
    Posted April 15, 2009 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    “A public meeting is a complete waste of time if the people in charge are not interested in hearing the alternatives”

    It’s not a public meeting if it is hosted and controlled by the City. A true public meeting should be organized and held by a group of concerned citizens at a location not controlled by the City. All options and opinions should be open for discussion. If the City holds a meeting it will be restricted to what the City wants to talk about not what the public wants to talk about.

  2. jim bender
    Posted April 15, 2009 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Exactly. Anyone up for a protest on that one?

  3. Anonymous
    Posted April 15, 2009 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Not a protest. A proper “public” meeting. By the public, for the public and about the public. Representatives from the City and Gallery would be invited but not on their terms, on the public’s terms. They would be there to present their point of view and answer questions. I doubt they would show up. The idea of a public question and answer session probably scares the shit out of them.

  4. Dave Nadalin
    Posted April 16, 2009 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    To all; your anxiety is well founded. I have booked the Council Chambers as a sitting Councillor and as a citizen in the past but Louise Gartshore refused my request 2 weeks ago to book it for a real public meeting regarding this issue. I am now in the process of booking a hall for the meeting in the next few weeks. Stay tuned. Good job Jim.

  5. Dave Nadalin
    Posted April 16, 2009 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    As a foot note as well we have a very benign political reporter for the only newspaper in town that will not, nor will his Editor and Publisher insist on it, tackle Michael with important questions to flush out his real character. That is why the public has to take things into their own hands. Hugo knows about the Gartshore refusal which would alarm most journalists, but he has yet failed again to expose Harding for what he is. Enough said. We have a bigger issue going on in this City with Tori’s dissapearance that puts people like Harding in real perspective. Not important.

  6. Anonymous
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    He’s really not important, but he does put on a swell kind of show.

  7. Anonymous
    Posted April 17, 2009 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Jimmy Swagert does too…

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: