Follow-Up Update Regarding Copetown Woods Application

Just a follow-up to our last conversation. We remain hopeful that the Corporation of Hamilton and the Province will ultimately do the right thing and dismiss this application from Copetown Woods.

 

As you are aware, we believe the City should have rejected this application immediately based on the very rules and regulations established by these organizations — organizations that are supposed to work for and represent the public interest.

 

Instead, for reasons still not disclosed to us, taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted chasing leprechauns and rainbows while, at the same time, new ways to increase taxation are being explored — whether through rainwater accumulation charges or potentially even well water consumption on rural properties. At times, it feels as though the World Economic Forum is using Hamilton as its poster child.

 

This brings us back to the ongoing question: “Is the fix in?”

 

In recent years, the applicants appear to have constructed buildings and structures that we believe may not have received the proper permits, or at minimum were not completed in the sequence typically required and enforced by the City. If this is true, who within the Corporation had the authority to allow such an apparent infringement of policy and procedure?

 

These questions should be straightforward for the Planning Department to answer. Unfortunately, because so much information appears hidden from public view, it is difficult to determine who holds the responsibility or authority to address these concerns transparently.

 

We believe the Mayor, who is facing re-election this fall, may be able to shed light on this issue. Likewise, the current head of the department — or even the former department head — may be able to explain why this particular matter appears to have gone unnoticed within the Planning Department bureaucracy.

 

We encourage the media and appropriate officials to reach out to these individuals for answers to these important and perplexing questions.

 

To conclude today’s update: how can the public be expected to trust any information provided by this applicant moving forward when these serious concerns remain unanswered?

 

In our next update, we hope to share what members of the environmental community believe could happen should this application proceed.

 

Thank you,

David Hughes