Letters, week of June 29

Letters to the editor


Mayor penalized enough by city council’s “Fab Five”

Sir: So Mayor Mike Bradley went to Toronto to discuss current issues with other mayors and a government official.

Did he have permission from council’s “Fab Five,” as I’m sure they were concerned he would “offend” someone, re: the Code of Conduct.

Was he also on his two weeks of unpaid salary, and if so, great gesture, Mike.

Will the “Fab Five” impose another penalty and disallow his gas and meal expenses. It seems their style to penalize twice.

To keep the mayor in line, maybe ‘deputy mayor’ Anne Marie Gillis rode shotgun in the back and Integrity Commission Robert Swayze drove.

Mark Armstrong
Sarnia

 



Bradley deserves a medal for surviving this city council

Sir: I want to advise Sarnia city council of the meaning of ‘mayor,’ as described in the Oxford dictionary.

Mayor: “Head of municipal corporation of city or borough.”

Definition of council: “Local administrative body of county, city, town.”

I think Sarnia council has lost sight of the fact that it is not the head.

And what is council doing to the head of the city? The mayor has been punished many times over and has been, and is being, treated worse than a criminal.

Who is the abuser here? Can we not forgive a person for a mistake and get on with business and not keep putting the city in debt through this vendetta?

Where is council’s compassion for the taxpayer? Its actions show it does not give one hoot about the over-burdened taxpayer.

May I go so far as to ask if councillors will pay for the extra security placed on the mayor out of their own pockets, to save the poor taxpayer from the fallout of their mean agenda?

Mayor Bradley should be given a medal for surviving the viciousness of this council he has to work with, as they certainly work against him.

Marie Findlay
Camlachie

 



I own the trees in my yard, not ‘big brother’ City Hall

Sir: I am writing with my concerns about the proposed tree bylaw.

I would like to explain first that I am a great proponent of developing and maintaining a healthy habitat in a city.

I am a prolific gardener, with bee-bird-butterfly friendly gardens. I do not use chemical herbicides or pesticides in my gardens.

I have two maples, three if you include the one on the boulevard, which I am already not allowed to touch.  Also I have several spruces, cedars, viburnums and a river birch.

That said, I OWN MY property and thus the trees on it. The “city” already determines how many dogs I may have, that my cats may not go outdoors and that my garbage should not be on the curb before a certain time. I cannot trim the maple on my boulevard, despite the fact that I would like to do so. The city crew didn’t understand my request, which was totally well thought-out without detriment to the tree, and would have benefitted the garden beneath planted to support pollinators.

But they didn’t honour it. They showed up, trimmed two minor branches, not the ones I requested — a total waste of tax dollars.

This is MY property and the trees on it are mine to do with as I choose.  We already have several “toothless” bylaws — noise pollution from outdoor speakers (we don’t deal with that, have you talked to your neighbours?), cat bylaws (it is up to you to rent the traps and get the large, unvaccinated, unneutered feral cat population by yourself from your mentally ill neighbour…we don’t deal with that).

This is yet another bureaucratic mess/tax grab for tree removal permits waiting to happen.

What if I want to remove the large, messy maple in my backyard, which I didn’t plant, to put in a pool?

I am getting a tad ticked at “big brother” wanting to pass by-laws that limit what I may do on MY property.

Margot Gulliford
Sarnia

 



Sound decisions take back seat to “reality show’ council

Sir: Being an interested witness to the machinations of decision-making by the Mayor and council members, and assessing their discussions of the past few years, I cannot but be discouraged to see the level to which the standard of practical performance has been lowered.

I have sought to understand how our Centennial Park project has gotten so far out of control, with a myriad of scope changes, surprises, and escalating spending.

It is only one example of the community’s business somehow getting a back seat to what can only be described as a ‘reality show’ simulation.

Is adequate attention being paid to the types of details and impacts, with far-reaching consequences, that constitute the essence of community leadership?

Maybe a tutorial on the differences between “must have or must do” actions versus “would like to have or would like to do” actions, could evolve into a better use of their time and their focus as a group?

Are we really accomplishing what should be the priorities of this community?

Respectfully,

Walter F. Petryschuk
Sarnia