Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Boris E on October 23, 2010 at 10:59am

I am far from being a Fletcher Fan, given her antics. However the anyonebutfletcher site is nothing but a smear campaign and has nothing positive to add, nor does it provide a well rounded picture of the candidate; or others in the running. It is infantile to hide anonymously behind a cheap website. Paula does have her good points after all. Whether she gets my vote is far from certain.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pentimento Fine Art Gallery on October 23, 2010 at 11:24am

I think we are much better than this site indicates!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leigh Hanssen on October 23, 2010 at 11:42am

Well I got this in my mailbox yesterday: http://twitpic.com/2zxy7o

Not a Fletcher fan BTW, I just hate anonymous cheesy websites & amateur cut and paste junk mail.

I would like to know who is responsible for it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pat on October 23, 2010 at 1:58pm

I don't know who did it, but they're ashamed enough of themselves that they've kept their name private in whois.org

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leslie Barns on October 23, 2010 at 5:50pm

It wasn't me. I was asleep.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0hiowy4covr3r on October 23, 2010 at 8:37pm

Yep, not a big fan. Although I've got no compunction when it comes to speaking the truth as I see it, this campaign hasn't come from our camp in any way, shape or form.

Frankly, it's a (small) marketing error; as I've learned, even if you speak the truth about a candidate, you're speaking their name aloud - not a desirable thing.

We did get some e-mails from that campaign, and I chuckled when I saw the poster, but apart from supporting the right of the citizens to do what they want to show their opinion, I've had nothing to do with it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew James on October 23, 2010 at 10:12pm

Liz's people say they had nothing to do with it. Me neither. If I had done it, I would have said what I put up on my own website and in my withdrawal thread tonight. ggood has asked me to repost it here, and so I shall. Here goes:

Any time there's an incumbent, an election is first and foremost a referendum on how the incumbent is doing. In judging Paula, it's fair to look at her record as a powerful member of the David Miller administration as well as her record in the ward. She can therefore share the blame for the failures, incompetence, waste and dubious practices of the last seven years. She can share the blame for the resulting voter anger that in all likelihood will elect Rob Ford as mayor.

And then there's her own voting record. Three recent examples:

1. For all the heat Sandra Bussin has taken over the Tuggs deal, Bussin didn't vote on it (conflict of interest). Paula was the one who introduced the motion in council to accept the deal! Why isn't Paula taking heat over that?

2. Paula introduced the motion to reimburse Adrian Heaps for his personal legal costs of settling a defamation suit brought against him as a candidate in the last election - not as a councillor. After the public outcry, Heaps refused to accept the money. Heaps took the PR hit, but it was Paula proposing to dole out our money to him.

3. With respect to the TTC yard, Paula supported the Leslie and Lakeshore location and Leslie route from the very beginning. She voted in favour of both at council, but seemed to backpedal on the issue at the Ralph
Thornton debate.

And let's look at her biggest "success". Paula claims credit for winning the fight against the Smart Centres proposal. But she had two chances to prevent Smart Centres from even buying into the property. And when it came to the OMB, her clumsy and heavy-handed attempts to block the development were ultimately pointless and potentially expensive for Toronto taxpayers.

First, if it weren’t for the City’s meddlesome Mega Studio deal, in which the City ignored all the industry advice and ALLOWED the developer to close the old studios in favour of the new studios, 629 Eastern would still be a busy film studio today and Ward 30 would never have had a SmartCentres battle.

Then, Paula was instrumental in blocking the owners of the studio space from obtaining a rezoning to proceed with a mixed-use condominium development. Smart Centres then bought an interest in the Eastern Avenue property to big box "power centre"-type retail development, and the expensive fun began.

The city challenged the big box proposal, as it should do where (as here) the neighbourhood was up in arms. That's not the problem. The problem is that the city didn't listen to their own planners' advice and simply rely on provisions of Toronto's 2002 Official Plan. Instead, led by Paula Fletcher, the city put up a dizzying series of roadblocks and impediments to the Smart Centres proposal, all of which were dismissed by the OMB decision. Most of the OMB's 54-page decision was spent criticizing the city for its ad hoc and improper planning approach. Municipalities aren't allowed to rejig the rules - pro or con - for specific developments. The planning principles set out in the Official Plan are supposed to apply to everybody.

In the end, the OMB refused the Smart Centres development on the basis of the 2002 Official Plan, which came into effect before Paula was even a councillor. (Mel Lastman was the mayor at the time - maybe he should be thanked for stopping the Walmart.) This decision was made on on March 4, 2009.

Despite losing, Smart Centres immediately claimed $1.4 million in legal costs for having to address the Paula's and the city's exhaustively inane arguments. Almost 20 months later, on the eve of the election, we still haven't yet had a decision resolving the issue. Why not? According to a well-known planning law expert I've talked to, if costs are claimed after an OMB hearing they are normally settled within weeks or months after the decision, not nearly two years later.

My guess is that the city is stalling on resolving the costs claim until after the election. It would be too embarrassing for Paula to admit that not only were all her shenanigans criticized by the OMB as useless, they resulted in costing Toronto taxpayers over a million dollars! And why would the developer go along with this unprecedented delay? They're not talking, but could it be in exchange for an agreement that the city will pay all or most of the costs requested - AFTER THE ELECTION? The point is: we don't know. Once again, the voters and taxpayers are not being told what is going on.

And after all that, we end up with a car dealerships at 629 Eastern instead of an active film studio or mixed-use development. If democratic accountability is to mean anything, Paula should be defeated for her incompetence in handling this issue alone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz West on October 23, 2010 at 10:26pm

I can say with absolute certainty that my campaign has nothing to do with the aforementioned website.

Andrew - thank you for having such obvious integrity and standing up for Ward 30. You ran an incredible campaign and continue to work for the residents by educating everyone with the facts. I applaud you. I look forward to our continuing relationship.

Liz West

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jen C on October 23, 2010 at 10:56pm

Thank you Andrew for so clearly elucidating why Paula must go. The crony-ism and poor decision making demonstrated by Ms. Fletcher make her an unworthy representative for Ward 30.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ggood on October 24, 2010 at 6:46am

was your friend you refer to, "not going to be duped", or was it "Susan Smith"?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lara on October 24, 2010 at 8:20am

Susan Smith became 'not going to be duped' who declared they were leaving this blog only for 'skeptical' to appear. Apparently the incumbent's staff/supporters don't have anything better to do than cast false asserations against one candidate. Perhaps helping their candidate go out and actually listen to the consitutients would be a better use of time, rather than negative blogging.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Naomi Eaton on October 24, 2010 at 9:47am

"You know, it would be nice if instead of making this a drama, someone could just stick to the issues."

That is excellent advice. Have you considered taking it?

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page