“Consolidated area” questions

This post addresses readers’ emailed questions prompted by yesterday’s “Contiguous, continuous, consolidated claptrap” post analyzing a letter from Randy Fasan (offering a “consolidated area” of 40 acres) that was received by senior city staff before an important Richmond council committee meeting related to the Garden City Lands. The Richmond Review has published a brief version, and my full post appears right below this one.

Question: The eleventh-hour attempt to solicit a City Council vote with these crumbs reeks of desperation. Which player(s) would be so desperate?

Answer: I’d better not name suspects, but I agree with you:

(a)   The letter was literally “eleventh-hour,” since it seems to have arrived within an hour of the meeting even though it addresses a concern that has been prominent for the past year.

(b)   It must have been meant to solicit the vote(s) of one or more councillors, which suggests that someone with a lot of power was afraid that Council was going to vote against the attempt to revive the application to exclude the Garden City Lands from the ALR.

(c)    It reeks.

Question: The only signature is that of Randy Fasan under “CANADA LANDS COMPANY CLC LIMITED” in capitals. I see no signature from an authorized Musqueam representative. Why would it not be from the Musqueam too?

Answer: Assuming that Randy Fasan of CLC was acting within his authority, he must have the authority to represent the Musqueam too. He is also the project manager for the ALR-exclusion application that was submitted in the name of the City, and I have a memo from him that shows orchestration of City staff to influence council members. There is also some evidence of influencing the federal government, the fourth party to the Garden City Lands MOU. I’m not very concerned for the Musqueam, since they have strong leadership. My concern is for our city, since too much control has been relinquished, with council hanging onto a vestige of it by the fingernails of three councillors, especially the 71-year-old fingernails of Harold Steves.

Question: A local newspaper called the letter an “agreement.” How binding do you think it would be?

Answer: Not binding. However, the letter doesn’t amount to anything anyway.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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