Posts
For those coming to my blog looking for my comments with respect to this week's Promoter article Post-election reflections and getting a broken link, you can read what I had to say here Honouring The Democratic Process in the Crowsnest Pass.
Afterwards, if you so choose, come back and read below what else I had to say on this matter.
.....................................................................................
Further to our recent flawed election process here in the Pass I have this to say regarding our one and only All-Candidates Election Forum that was hosted by our local Chamber of Commerce.
To begin with let me ask you this. What other community can you think of holds an election forum for their mayoral candidates in which no debate takes place? With not even an opening speech being allowed? In addition, our forum crowed in 19 council candidates into the mix. Mayoral candidates were given 3 questions (one of mine was on BearSmart?) from the public that had to be answered in 1 minute increments followed by a closing speech of 1-1/2 minutes. That's it! That is what the voters here got by way of engaging their mayoral candidates. I challenge anyone to tell me how it is possible for the electorate to make an informed decision based on such a crowed, restrictive and limited format? To put it bluntly, our one and only election forum was a farce!
Why did the people here settle for this is now the big question on many peoples minds today? Did the organizers plan it this way? Did it serve a certain relatively unknown establishment candidate's interests to not have to reveal himself and thereby be accountable to both the people and his fellow candidates?
The fact the media here said nothing about this sordid mess speaks volumes with respect to their culpability in this matter. But this does not surprise me, given their track record. In fact, their article above ludicrously glorifies our democratic process here. In addition, my fellow mayoral candidate who also lost blindly follows their lead, as do most of the council candidates including the incumbents who ran? Go figure?? (I think most want to be thought of as gracious losers in the hope of currying favourable public opinion and thereby leaving the door open for a possible election try again in the future. In my opinion, common sense and guts have left them, if they had any to begin with, that is? I got news for some of them, especially the incumbents. Experience has thought me, once they brand you and throw you out there is no coming back, in most cases (Choppy being a notable exception in the election before last)). The bottom line is the whole process was flawed and nobody said anything? How sad and truly pathetic!
Anyhow, getting back to our mayoralty race the following quote comes to mind...
"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything."
In conclusion, let me say, I personally feel robbed that I did not have the chance and opportunity to debate the issues and to put my platform forward and challenge the others to do likewise, and then see who had the best vision, plan and arguments. Who was the better debater? Who showed the most experience and had the most knowledge with respect to the issues and demonstrated the best leadership abilities? None of these questions were answered that night, because none of us were given the opportunity to stand up and be counted.
We were not given this opportunity which is the basic foundation of the democratic process elsewhere in this great country, and in other democratic countries around the world. Why was this? Is it because 'the fix' was in from the get-go and therefore democracy here in the Crowsnest Pass is anything but democratic?
Because of how our election process was handled here in the Pass we landed up with a leader most people still do not know, who just happened to get in by a landslide 'majority'. Now go figure?
It is a great ability to be able to conceal one's ability.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Search This Blog
32 comments:
Let me point out something to you. The public forum was put on by the Chamber of Commerce - all done by VOLUNTEERS and the cost was covered by the Chamber as well, which does not receive municipal funds. You cannot have a debate with 22 candidates. It does not work. If you wanted to debate the other mayoral candidates that badly you should have shown leadership and arranged something yourself. I gave you a fair listen during this election but looking back over your posts I could see that you do not have the leadership qualities that we need. Look within if you want to find the answer to your problems.
WHOA! Let me point something out to you. Because your chamber has obvious shortcomings this community and our election process must suffer? And candidates should organize their own election forums? That is your defence and solution? Your callous and ignorant comments go to the very heart of what is so very wrong with our community and how it is managed, and you don't even see it? How sad!
In conclusion 'anonymous', if you really are a director of the chamber I think it is you and the others on your board who need to look within, not I. In this regard, it is my opinion the following quote best sums up your comment here...
“Nowhere in your incoherent rambling did you come close to what can be considered a rational thought. Everyone is now dumber having heard it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Finally, it should be obvious by now to everyone concerned that we need others to step forward to organize and run our election forums. People who really care about the democratic process, wanting to give all candidates and the electorate every opportunity to know one another by clearly showing to one and all who they are, what they stand for and why they are the best candidate for the job. We don’t have to settle for half measures by those who don’t care, or are part of the problem in unfairly and undemocratically and ‘routinely’ saddling us with establishment flunkies.
John, I agree with you. The chamber had three years between elections to make sure they booked a suitable facility (which the Elk's Hall was not) and with so many candidates two separate forums should have been held. One for the Mayoralty candidates and one for the Council candidates.
I also agree with your comment about the 'fix' being in, otherwise why else would the chamber feel such imposition and being hard-pressed in holding this one and only forum? They knew their forum mattered little at the end of the day and therefore held no weight, and that the real decision would be made afterwards during the three weeks after the forum and before the election.
They failed miserably here as they have for years past both for our elections and for lobbying on behalf of the businesses here. They are a toothless tiger that have achieved little to nothing for this community, aside from holding the odd fund raising event that benefits their organization only.
Is it any wonder we have so many store fronts boarded up?
Diane
Anyone in the community willing to talk about the River Run fiasco yet?... and the fact that toxic materials have been unearthed by BB for the community's taxpayers to pay for the cleanup?
Or is it still a big secret ? Talk about a major elephant in the room...WOW.
Anon @5:02
Well let’s see? I don't think the Chamber of Commerce has ever brought the subject up, nor has our local Community Futures, nor has the Ad Hoc Committee, nor do I expect the former Mayor's clone and new council will either? So I guess the 'establishment' continues to be successful in keeping this open secret... secret.
Bridgecreek and our local establishment couldn't have found a better bunch of dumber local yokels to hoodwink than the Crowsnest Pass with their lack of basic common sense with respect to their future liabilities and understanding with respect to accountability, transparency and due diligence, is what I guess you are saying? This is understandable considering they voted in more of the same ‘good government’ instead of an honest government that would have gotten to the bottom of this sordid mess.
With respect to ‘good government’ I point out again to those who might have missed it that our Mayor kept tight control over everything (including Bridgecreek) by ensuring specific information was only shared between him and the CAO, and not with council per se. That is why even the Deputy Mayor’s position had no longevity to it being rotated every two months as it was to deliberately keep council out of the loop. We now know that our current Mayor is following his lead. This council will be as impudent to get to the bottom of this business at River Run as the last one was which is exactly why I suggest this Mayor and certain councillors were hand picked for the job.
Now wait for the silence...Who's in on the millions??
The silence is deafening in CNP. Refer to the Lethbridge Herald article 'Dreams Interrupted' October 16th, 2010. There is a timeline of events on the 52 acre slag pile. Read carefully and you will discover that council members at the time are some of the same ones who gave the green light to the BBoys knowing that the property was NOT suitable for development of any kind. I find it beyond the realm of common sense let alone decency that future development was being encouraged by a doctor of medicine. A further search at Land Titles Office should give more information.
Dream Interupted article can be found here...
http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/2010101637255/front-page-news/dream-interrupted-101610.html
For those who do not know the good doctor responsible for River Run is no longer practicing medicine has his license has been suspended.
http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/PhysicianSearch/PhysicianProfile.aspx?PhysicianId=000001001768
Not for the first time either has he was suspended from practising for 6 months back in 1999.
http://www.cpsa.ab.ca/Libraries/Res_Messenger/m076.pdf
I guess our local print media were just slow in reporting this NEWS!!
What with an election on at the time in which the Mayor and his 'buddy' Decoux were running, I guess it just slipped their minds?
Signed,
DISGUSTED CROWSNEST PASS RESIDENT
ONE WORD....WOW!
HE GOT FIRED FROM BEING A DOCTOR SO HE DECIDED TO GET INTIMATE WITH PONZI SCHEMERS...WHAT A LEGACY TO LEAVE BEHIND..CONGRATULATIONS.
The local papers spend far too much time painting a Potemkin village there and too little reporting the truth (not surprising considering at least one of them is in bed with these scoundrals). The local hillbillies lap it up like it is butter rather than the BS it really is. What fools they are! Hahahaha!!!
Wow is right, Irwin is sick. The Crowsnest Pass has been "lead" by a very crazy man for a very long time, no wonder the storefronts are papered up and people are fleeing. How are new people ever going to be attracted to the place?
For the curious, in my next post is section 118 taken directly from the "Health Professions Act, R.S.A, c. H-7" One sure has to wonder why this information didn't hit the news, never mind what happened back in 1999...
Assessing incapacity
118(1) If a complaints director has grounds to believe that a regulated member is incapacitated, whether or not a complaint has been made under section 54, the complaints director may direct the regulated member to submit to specified physical or mental examinations, or both, by a person or at a facility specified by the complaints director and, despite section 100(4) to (6), request the person or facility to report to the complaints director and the regulated member within a time specified by the complaints director.
(2) On receipt of the results of any mental or physical examination under subsection (1), and if recommended by the person or facility the complaints director may direct the regulated member to submit to treatment by a person or at a facility specified by the complaints director.
(3) Despite section 100(4) to (6), the complaints director may request that the results of the treatment under subsection (2) be provided by the person or facility to the complaints director and the regulated member within the time specified by the complaints director.
(4) The complaints director may direct that the regulated member cease providing professional services until a report is received under subsection (1) or if a direction is made under subsection (2), cease providing professional services until the complaints director is satisfied that the regulated member is no longer incapacitated and the complaints director must notify the registrar of the direction to cease providing professional services.
(5) If the regulated member does not comply with a direction of the complaints director under subsection (1), (2) or (4),
(a) the complaints director must continue with the investigation process if a complaint was previously made with respect to a matter that arose because of the alleged incapacity, and
(b) the complaints director may treat the non‑compliance as a complaint in accordance with section 56 and act on it under section 55 if no complaint has been previously made with respect to a matter that arose because of the alleged incapacity.
(6) The regulated member may appeal a direction of the complaints director under subsection (1), (2) or (4) to the council.
continued...
(7) An appeal under subsection (6) must be in writing, must set out the grounds for the appeal and must be served on the registrar within 7 days after receipt of the direction by the regulated member.
(8) An appeal under subsection (6) must be conducted
(a) as soon as reasonably practicable, and
(b) in accordance with section 89.
(9) If a complaint has been made against a regulated member, and the complaints director
(a) is satisfied that the matter complained of arose because of the incapacity of the regulated member,
(b) has made one or more directions under subsections (1) and (2), and
(c) is satisfied that the regulated member is complying with the directions made under subsection (2),
the complaints director may, at any time before the matter has been referred to the hearings director, suspend any proceedings with respect to the complaint for a period of time that the complaints director considers appropriate.
(10) Despite Part 4, if a matter has been suspended under subsection (9) and the complaints director is satisfied that the regulated member is no longer incapacitated, the complaints director may decide to suspend the proceedings indefinitely, with or without conditions.
(11) Despite a suspension of proceedings under subsection (9) or (10), the complaints director may, despite Part 4, at any time direct that the proceedings with respect to the complaint be resumed.
(12) If the complaints director suspends proceedings under subsection (9) or (10), the complaints director must within 14 days notify the complainant in writing of the suspension and the reasons for it.
Amazing how all the scandals against the establishment types in the Crowsnest go unreported while at the same time the media there launches successful propaganda wars against the innocents on their councils who do nothing but put in an honest days work only to get turfed on their ass for doing so. How 'crazy' things are there? The locals must be as stupid as the day is long... although the days are not so long these days, are they?
Thank you Mr. Prince for your blog and to its readers for opening our eyes. All the best to you sir!
The establishment will exist as long as the people continue to support the media which protects the rich and entitled residents. The BBoys sought out the media, the wealthy, the power brokers. Politicians bought into the scheme hoping for a big payoff if they simply let the rules slide. I doubt that the BBoys paid a dime for the 52 acres. They had no money to speak of at that point until they began collecting from the initial investors into the various projects. The land was bought from the municipality for $150,000 by an 'unkwown investor'. That investor hoped to develop the land most likely with the knowledge that it was severely contanminated and posed a severe health hazard.How much did the original investor gain in kickbacks? The larger question is how did this carnage occur without a single peep from council members not involved in this scam.
Thank you John for sticking to your guns. Seems your opinions do hold some water. As the non-believers had no problem throwing stones at you, You may have been right all along. Keep up the good work. THe truth will leach out eventually, for all to see, even the non-believers and the criminals. It will be a great day.
I would just like to point out that the Chamber of Commerce held only one forum in previous election years as well. Why it is suddenly scandalous that they did the same thing they always do is beyond me. Also, I believe the Elks Hall was chosen because the MDM was booked up solid and the Crowsnest Centre no longer exists, and there is no other large venue in town. The only other possibility would be to hold it in the Albert Stella Arena with microphones and a sound system, which would have been more expensive to put on -- also, I am not sure if you are allowed to put chairs on the artificial surface in that arena, and the surface can't be removed without great cost.
As for River Run, it is of course a shame how badly the project was mismanaged and how quickly the economic slowdown knocked it on its butt. However, as far as I know everyone who invested money in it signed an agreement stating that they understood that there was a risk of losing all their money and that they could not hold the company responsible for that loss for any reason, including mismanagement. It's a crying shame for some people who lost money they perhaps could not afford to lose -- but if they could not afford to lose it, perhaps they should not have invested it in such a manner. With that signed agreement there is not much anyone can do about it, including council.
In addition, as far as I know, the River Run land was previously owned by a Mr. Squarek, who sold it to Bridgecreek. That transaction had nothing to do with council. Council's role was in approving the area structure plan and rezoning for the property, all of which was perfectly reasonable to do given the information available at the time. Perhaps some members of council, notably the Mayor, should have known that there were environmental problems on the property. However, it is interesting to note that there is a plaque beside the highway alongside the property, put there by the provincial government, saying that the property was cleaned up and reclaimed.
Finally, from what I understand, the local media has not reprinted the Lethbridge Herald story because there is a chance that the Lethbridge Herald may be sued for pieces of the article that are allegedly inaccurate and damaging. No small town paper anywhere would want to touch that.
Ya thats right...its the investor's fault that the flashy presentations and smooth talking fooled them..that the appraisal (that was to secure their investment) was bogus...that the people responsible took off with their money..That senior citezens who may be not investment savvy were stripped of their retirement dreams..
nice job Mr anonomous @ 11:32...way to re-victimize people..idiot/.
Anonymous Nov.10th-2010-11:32am My stomach turns reading your post. 'Economic turn down"? Try using investors money to support lavish lifestyles. Cominglinging of investor money to purchase properties in Palm Springs.
A plaque on the highway? Yes a plaque to state the contaminated land was reclaimed to be left as parkland. The land was never meant to be disturbed let alone for residential use. Sitting members of council at the time knew this information.
Hi John,
I want to thank you for all the good hard work you are doing. But your Community as a whole doesn't seen to appreciate it.In response to 5:04am: You can tell how ignorant the person who wrote this is. They feel so guilty that they can't sleep at 5:00 in the morning. If you use a volunteer for the excuse of doing a poor job you are very ignorant because most of the volunteers do a very good job if they're left alone and have no suggestions from the shysters.
Those shysters manipulate the volunteers and turn around and blame the volunteers for doing a poor job just to cover their butts. How low can you go? Real rats or what? You remember John, I mentioned that to you before try to organize something for debate and invite them if they don't show the public would see they're scared to show their true colors. Those Chamber of Commerce are controlled by the majority of those shysters the mayor and his cronies don't expect much from that. When you say "Commerce" you would think you have to have a business to participate, here any "bum" who has $114 to waste can join and invite all his friends, and abuse the little bit of power they may have. "The Gong Show at work"
And for 11:32pm: No use to respond to a no mind like that, he can't tell the difference between "shit and chocolate" because they're both brown.
Anon @11:32
Because something has been done in a certain way in the past, knowing it to be wrong doesn’t make it right. I spoke up on this in the past to no avail. There are three years between elections giving ample time for the chamber to book suitable facilities if they so chose to do so, which again, they chose not to. However, to their credit and upon my insistence they at least did away with the ‘anonymous’ questions this time around, which I have on good authority from an insider were planted in the past to discredit or hurt certain candidates. The bottom line is considering the board makeup over the years with at least half of them being from ‘old school’ it is not surprising this community gets what we do from them, which has not been very much from a business point of view, or in the lobbying arena, and certainly not in hosting honest, fair and democratically important events such as our election forums.
With respect to River Run, I think the comments posted by others after yours sums up pretty well how I feel as well. The only thing I would add is the deplorable lack of accountability from our leaders with respect to this matter, especially from our former Mayor. Aside from council as a whole being kicked out (except for one) there was a complete and total lack of accountability. This is unconscionable behaviour and clearly shows that the ‘crooks’ are in charge in this community, with their head honcho and cronies on the former council being no more than flunkies and willing (unwilling?) accomplices in this sordid mess. It would seem, once again, that ‘gangsterism’ reigns supreme here in the Pass amidst a culture of civic corruption and entitlement, which suffers little in the way of any real consequences.
No small town paper anywhere would want to touch that.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard that excuse from our local media I would be a rich man today. They use it anytime their people are in trouble to avoid publishing articles that could be damaging to their side. Although, it’s funny how they do not seem to have any problems trashing the other side? Only when it comes to their side. Lying, two-faced, hypocrites come to mind here, doesn’t it?
I’m still waiting for our local media to do an exposé on our good doctor with regards to his license being revoked due to his ‘mental deficiencies’. I’m sure if it had been anyone else, like you and I, it would have been front page news and we would have been tarred and feathered and raked under the coals by now. But again it is clear our local media prefers to paint Potemkin Villages for the people that to tell them the truth.
To Anonymous @ 2:31 pm: I do not believe that I stated anywhere in my post that it was the investors' fault. Clearly the lion's share of the blame no matter how you cut it lies with Bridgecreek. I simply wonder why people seem so insistent that council do something about it when as far as I can tell there is nothing council can legally do.
To Anonymous @ 7:08 pm: I may be wrong but I don't believe the plaque beside the highway mentions parkland at all. It was only the Lethbridge Herald story that said it was reclaimed for parkland. I believe the sign only says that the site was cleaned up and reclaimed. Regardless, as I said before, the mayor at least should probably have known if the land was not suitable for residential development, but even there I cannot say with certainty that the municipality ever got a report to that effect, and I do not believe you can either, so a lot of this on any side is simply speculation.
Additionally, it would be foolish to pretend that the economic downturn had nothing whatsoever to do with the situation at River Run. Larger and better run developments than River Run had to be shut down because of it, including several in Calgary. The Southmore development in Crowsnest Pass was delayed by at least a couple years, and no one has suggested (that I know of) that they are crooked. River Run was mismanaged for certain. Perhaps deliberately so. However, the nature of the way they chose to do the development is that they need to raise a lot of money, and to do that they need to take their initial investments and put it into fundraising efforts to get more money, the idea being that it allows you to eventually make all you need and then you can build, get profit, and pay everyone back. In hindsight that was a really bad way to do it, and they should have broken the development up into smaller pieces so that each section could be fundraised, built, and paid back, with profit going into the next section, similar to how Ironstone successfully worked things. But it wasn't done that way. Maybe they wanted to bilk people for money, I don't know, but it strikes me that if that was all they wanted, then they would have run off after the floor fell out beneath them. They haven't run off, so I really don't know. But then, neither do you. Not for certain.
To John: Personally I think you are giving a loosely organized, uncertainly-run volunteer group more credit (and blame) than it deserves.
Regarding the media, it seemed to me that most of the trashing of the other side, as you put it, was regarding council matters. No articles were ever run that I am aware of regarding Dean Ward's business. In addition I know that neither paper did anything when a councillor (one of the "other side" ) was reported to the police for parking in handicapped zones. They didn't do a story about another "other side" councillor who went out drinking all the time. They didn't really make that big of a fuss when yet another "other side" councillor was practically caught lying, not compared to what a big city paper would do. Likewise neither has touched the Dr. Irwin surgical license issue. This goes along with the fact that they don't print names in police news. Both papers try to leave personal lives out of things. Cowardly? Maybe. It could also be called prudent, as both papers have been in trouble in the past over those sorts of things, though personally I agree that newspapers should not shy away from the truth because of convenience. But it seems to me that they're more consistent, at least, than you give them credit for.
"but it strikes me that if that was all they wanted, then they would have run off after the floor fell out beneath them. They haven't run off, so I really don't know. But then, neither do you. Not for certain."
They haven't run off? Really? When is the last time you've heard from Bill Bradley or Colin Becker? Has the "sales center" been open at all? Do you see advertisements trying to sell these lovely "condos" on coal? Has River Run addressed the Chamber of Commerce in the last 2 years giving them an update? How come the newspapers can rarely get a hold of them for comments? Have they addressed council at all since 2008? Why aren't they actively trying to raise private money right now? Why did they stop? WHERE ARE THEY???
The receesion caused alot of the probelm? Let me ask you this...If you raised 30 million dollars and did a couple of million dollars worth of work, you'd have 25-28 million dollars socked away somewhere wouldn't you? Would the recession do anything to that stash? I think not. Someone , somewhere got very rich on this.
why did they stop work in spring of 2008,long before the start of the recession.
What's your opinion on the bogus appraisal (64 million I believe it was for the coal slack land)You neglected to defend that.
You're still an idiot.
"However, AS FAR AS I KNOW everyone who invested money in it signed an agreement stating that they understood that there was a risk of losing all their money and that they could not hold the company responsible for that loss for any reason, including mismanagement."
(every investment has that disclaimer. should we all stop investing because scamming seems legal in Canada..)
"In addition, AS FAR AS I KNOW , the River Run land was previously owned by a Mr. Squarek, who sold it to Bridgecreek. That transaction had nothing to do with council. "
"Finally, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, the local media has not reprinted the Lethbridge Herald story because there is a chance that the Lethbridge Herald may be sued for pieces of the article that are allegedly inaccurate and damaging."
Well AS FAR AS I KNOW, it seems you know alot more than most....hmmmmmmmm.
Let's hear about the bogus appraisal then.
I actually don't know anything about the appraisal. If it was appraised (or if they said it was appraised) at $64 million as-is, that's clearly ridiculous. It was purchased for $1 million in 2005 or 2006.
As for the 30-million comment above (I have no idea if that's an accurate number for how much was invested or not, but let's go with it), it seems to me that they must have spent more than $2 million on everything they did. Was some of it wasted? Absolutely. They had those hummers, for example, and they floated an inter-company loan to one of their projects in California, and those were both wastes. But they also had billboards (to try to get more investments), ads in magazines, they paid money to the municipality to do design work on getting water to Sentinel, they paid for a bunch of other design work for engineering and architecture and infrastructure, they paid to move the electrical substation off the property, they bought the sales centre building and filled it with stuff, they paid for a whole lot of staff (maybe too many, I don't know), they set up offices with people in the Netherlands to try to raise more money, they dug up the property in Blairmore, they moved a whole lot of earth and they trucked some of it off-property. People in charge usually draw a salary (I have no idea what it might have been). That all adds up. I don't know for sure if it all adds up to the same amount that was invested or not. But the investment dried up completely, and an investment-based venture can't operate without investment, and the state of the economy clearly played a role in that. Their own mistakes and bad press contributed I'm sure. But the idea that they pocketed 95% of the invested money and walked away is not supported by any of the known facts. I'm not saying that foul deeds didn't happen, because maybe they did, but I am saying that no proof has been offered up that I know about. It's all conjecture and anger.
All I really know is that calling people idiots when they are simply trying to present some rational information is no way to have a reasoned debate. And without a reasoned debate all you have is someone yelling on the internet, which doesn't get anything done for anybody.
However, I've come a long way from the original point I was trying to make way back when, which is that I don't understand why some people expect council to do anything about the situation. The current council has no power whatsoever except to deny any new applications, which is exactly what has been happening in recent years. Otherwise it follows the same procedure as any other development going belly-up: the investors can either work with the developer (as some have chosen to do) or they can take over the project (as others in this case have also chosen to do).
Oh, and regarding the idea that they've run away ... Colin Becker is no longer with the company, he quit some time ago, so that's why you won't see him. I believe Bill Bradley owns a home in Crowsnest Pass and lives here, but he might understandably not want to show himself around town very much. It's true that they haven't presented at the Chamber in a while. Bradley has been quoted in newspaper articles though. He's stated a number of times that he is trying to secure private financing from banks. Obviously nothing has come of that yet. They have not been to council except when they applied to turn the sales centre property into affordable housing (which was denied by council), and it seems Bradley felt that the previous council was hostile to him (which it was, not perhaps without reason). They were out of money and could not staff the sales centre, but there used to be a number on the door saying that you could call and set up an appointment.
I know all these things because I talk to people, read the newspapers carefully, and pay attention, instead of yelling on the internet.
Well how wonderful for you to take the moral high road and not yell on the internet. And its great that you have such a knowlege of the facts and that you've kept your "ear to the ground". However, maybe there are a few people out there who have a closer understanding of what has happened here. Maybe there are a few unfortunate souls who have seen first hand how a polished scheme and a few "developers/salesmen" can profoundly change the happiness in the lives of families/couples/retirees etc...Possibly, there are people out there who have experience in how being fooled and fleeced in one fell swoop can break the spirit and confidence that they once had before being introduced to said "developers/salesmen". Quite possibly, these people may take some offence when they read your posting that had a certain tone that somehow defended the totally accessible people of Bridgecreek Development.
But hey, they should have known better right? They are as much to blame as anyone, according to you.
Well I'm very sorry I do not have the moral prowess that you possess sir/madame, so you can take your higher moral attitude and stick it up your a$$.
Oh, as for the "rediculous" appraisals, take a look at this link below and read down to the Bridgcreek section. You will read how the purchased property at Crowsnest Lake morphed from a 1.4 million dollar price tag to an appraised value of 19 miillion dollars.WOW.
Also, the Mark Skauge individual who is quoted in the article and was one of the promoters, is the son of the CEO of Olympia Trust, the very company that the silly investors put their money "in trust" with when they invested. Imagine that!
Unfortunately there was a funnel directly from Olympia into Bridgecreek's bank accounts. There was even a municipal councellor who was a paid employee of Bridgecreek ;)
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:M3BdykYKenEJ:www.platinumequities.com/images/documents/pitching_properties.pdf+colin+becker&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjKfM5ESjQBz4pU77xfDffriP7VlX-fcgFUQOF5DoxMWXsSeNYnzKq8R55K3uVqOOw0Sp-snGB-JynxBh8-0SBqLP5VlhxsX_I-VfmcHdLqqFvXmYBFYQULSxhiTY-bpasMUZXR&sig=AHIEtbQsZpr4UpKwvvbVaWqWI6XaRtGUgQ
P.s. Take a read in this weeks Herald regarding the coal dust problem. That poor lady. But its probably her own fault for buying a house so close to the coal site, right? Funny, I didn't read any explainations or quotes from the Bridgecreek people. They must be on vacation.
The BBoys care about money and only money. When you can leave your own father destitute with no money to pay the monthly care bill at a seniors residence, you can take anyone's money, young or old. The BBoys do not like paying their bills so I suspect that there are many non-investors still holding the bag as well. The BBoys have no conscience so they see their actions as quite honourable. It was the nasty recession that brought them down. First class b******t which was then given credit by the CNP rags. Any investor in this sordid mess has my total sympathy. Take care.
Anon @9:05
Loved your 'moral high road' comment which accurately describes the previous commentator to a tee. I find it surprising how he solely blames the investors for the disaster known as River Run but lays no blame whatsoever on the doorstep of our former Mayor, despite his being a major player in this fiasco? No mention of accountability, lack of transparency and due diligence here by one entrusted to represent the people in this community. Quite surprising, I think? Until, that is, one realizes this person could quite possibly be none other than John I. himself? Makes sense if one considers how a person considered by many as a megalomaniac who was allowed to run ramshod over this community for years is now concerned about his legacy, doesn't it?
Legacy? My God what legacy? Turning a blind eye while scumbags ripped up contaminated land with no Security Deposit in place. As an elected official actively promoted a scheme to divest investors of their money to support lavish lifestyles. As of late has been quoted as saying the slag heap that is filling the mountain air with deadly dust is suitable for development at some point. Sadly, I do not believe the BBoys ever intended to build River Run. Nothing more than a glitzy way to upkeep a very lavish lifestyle. Take care.
Chloe,
There are some who believe you are right on the money with respect to it being a scam from the start, with local political and establishment participation. Mean while, we still have no answers and no accountability. Have the culprits gotten away with their dastardly deed? Only time will tell... the clock keeps on ticking. Hopefully this Mayor and council can be spurred to better communicate with the people than the last one did, and we will know somthing soon. Unfortunately, that seems to be the best we can hope for at this time. Residents and investors need to put pressure on our locally elected representatives to come clean and give us the low-down on where we stand. Will they? That's the $64,000 question.
Post a Comment