OMG!!! How many of you unfortunate Rupertites happened to watch the GONG show tonite?What a disgrace !The only one that had even a glimpse of brains was MR Mirau.We are open for business?What a f>>>>ing joke!Why would any one want to invest in Rupert when they are being called a liar!The mayor should have asked for an apology from Niesh who was slanders in his comments.What kind of message are you idiots trying to send?As a tax payer I find this kind of conduct unacceptable.
Councillor Niesh was so far out of line with what happened last night, I am embarassed that he is a councillor of this city after last nights shameful presentation. I feel totally cheated that I voted for him…this man has no business representing our city (ESPECIALLY in front of investors), not after last night.
I guess with everyone being so frustrated with the last council and wishing for a change , I bet a whole lot of you folks are questioning what you put down on the ballots . Just another four years unless there is a nice revolt but with the new laws coming from Ottawa , one must be careful how they speak out . Shit I am still waiting for Mayor Brains to call me , told me and promised that he would be in touch ( cough cough ) .
[quote=“bthedog”]
Councillor Niesh was so far out of line with what happened last night, I am embarassed that he is a councillor of this city after last nights shameful presentation. I feel totally cheated that I voted for him…this man has no business representing our city (ESPECIALLY in front of investors), not after last night.[/quote]
Can you elaborate on what was said for those of us who don’t watch the council meeting.
Was going to post a link to the April 27th meeting, but they took it off from YouTube.
It was very embarrassing. It was about that executive housing plan on the former baptist church, and council weren’t sure if the developer would follow up on the final plan to convert that in to a senior’s complex. Then for some reason Councillor. Niesh went on a tirade accusing the developer of being a liar for a few minutes (maybe 10 minutes, dunno)
I didn’t watch the rest of the meeting, but if the City decided to bring the video back on YouTube unedited, it’s around the 1h 26s mark.
Neish was likely the only one making sense the developer likely is as he calls it
Yes, so many wanted change. But for what? Is this what you all wanted? We miss you AnnaA.
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
We miss you AnnaA.[/quote]
Yup.
Yup!
I can only say WHO CARES if they follow through or not, the ex church property now pays property taxes, if the ppl want to waste their money converting that place that is their business as long as they get the proper zoning and follow the bylaws, if they don’t reconvert it afterwards to a seniors housing what difference would that make, it would still be housing for renters. so the rant by councilor Neish was totally out of line and he should apologize to the ppl wanting to redevelop the church property, personally I think it is a waste of money but hey it is not my money
You all have got to be kidding me…Our elected councillors are doing their jobs as best as they can. When councillor Neish was questioning (not ranting) about the housing plan, he should be…Any of you remember what the pellet plant said about making the waterfront accessible a fixing it up…Have they? NO Al they have done is reneged on it. So when I hear of an investor that one point says they are going to develop executive rentals at one meeting (in regards for the rezoning) , and then senior housing at the next meeting, I would be questioning it as well. In regards to paying property taxes, look at those nice Pinnacle silos in our waterfront. Even if they did pay taxes, which they don’t. They are a big eye sore for our town, and still haven’t done squat for our waterfront…We need truth, not broken promises. Councillor Neish did nothing wrong in simply questioning those plans, and trying to get a simple answer.
^he didn’t question it, he ranted and raved like a hot head and inappropriately misconstrued the mayors previous comments by saying the mayor agrees and works with liars…that is not ok behaviour when you are an elected official, and I don’t think anyone else at that meeting thought it was either. He came off looking like a child who wasnt getting his way and was throwing a tantrum.
Plain and simple, he was off base, speculative and accusatory…furthermore his own residence is located in the same neighbourhood as this development…he should have excused himself from this debate and decision as it is due to conflict of interest.
And furthermore, who cares if this is for seniors or not, the developer had to abide by the parking and bylaws of the city anyways…time to get this lot on the city tax roll and stop this red tape bullshit that the city is so well known for.
[quote=“bthedog”]^he didn’t question it, he ranted and raved like a hot head and inappropriately misconstrued the mayors previous comments by saying the mayor agrees and works with liars…that is not ok behaviour when you are an elected official, and I don’t think anyone else at that meeting thought it was either.
Plain and simple, he was way off base and accusatory…furthermore his own residence is located in the same neighbourhood as this development…he should have excused himself from this debate and decision as it is.[/quote]
Mr Niesh’s house is also 2/3 the size of these 6 lots. I wonder if his neighbours complained when he built a monstrosity of house blocking views of some of the neighbours.
Democracy works. If you feel that Mr. Niesh did something improper then vote accordingly in the next election. You could also write a letter to the editor or send a letter/e-mail to him and voice your displeasure.
This is an example of democracy not working. Good councillors were ousted in the previous election and they’ve been replaced with so many new, questionable people. I have no faith that the electorate will get it right the next time either. Voting accordingly in the last election would have been advisable because now we’re stuck until 2018.
I voted for Mr. Niesh in the last election…I really like what he had to say leading up to the election…and for the most part have agreed with what he has said and done at council since being elected…but he was out of line on Monday and did not send a good message out there to would be developers/investors.
This whole process on India Avenue has been ridiculous from the start…no wonder Rupert has a reputation for driving away investment and development…Monday’s council meeting is a prime example of why.
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
This is an example of democracy not working. Good councillors were ousted in the previous election and they’ve been replaced with so many new, questionable people. I have no faith that the electorate will get it right the next time either. Voting accordingly in the last election would have been advisable because now we’re stuck until 2018.[/quote]
I have a ton of faith in this new council…and I think they have been doing a great job so far (outside of Monday’s sessions, which really was more on Councillor Niesh having a truly terrible night) and have been making the right decisions. And this is coming from someone who was highly skeptical of some of these councillors and mayor before the election.
Our mayor handled Mr. Niesh’s outburst at Monday’s meeting perfectly IMO.
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
This is an example of democracy not working … [/quote]
No, this is an example of democracy working. Council members should speak their minds at the public meetings, and not just the closed meetings where its no doubt easier to speak with candor since the public is not listening in. Sometimes they will disagree, but debate is good. According to the viewpaper report councillor Cunningham also voted against the development.
Councillor Niesh was not in a conflict of interest just because he lives in that neighbourhood. A genuine conflict is where a council member uses their elected position to advance the interests of a business or association they are part of.
It sounds like some of councillor Niesh’s words were not well chosen, but if the developer is concerned they can have a lawyer write him a letter. I doubt that they will though.
It would be good to be able to confirm what he actually said and the context, but unfortunately the video is still not available < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … e-for.html >.
Most of the current council ran on platforms that included doing something about the rental housing situation, although with little detail about what exactly they wanted to do. If the council wants more low rent accommodation they’re the ones that need to come up with the plans and proposals. It’s not very realistic to expect the private sector to fulfill their election promises for them.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
No, this is an example of democracy working. **Council members should speak their minds at the public meetings, and not just the closed meetings where its no doubt easier to speak with candor since the public is not listening in. Sometimes they will disagree, but debate is good. **According to the viewpaper report councillor Cunningham also voted against the development. [/quote]
Well said. Agreed.
Debate is good…and should happen…but not in the way that Councillor Niesh “debated” at council on Monday. Plain and simple, he seemed pissed off he wasn’t getting his way and handled it very unprofessionally.