Nouvelles

September 15th, 2019

Dear Ms Black,

Please consider this an official document and forward this letter to the councillors and the mayor for their consideration.
I’m writing today to comment on and ask questions about issues raised at the council meeting of September 9th, 2019.
The main area of concern is the continuing communication problems between Wentworth and its residents. The fact that approximately 130 people turned out for a council meeting in September in itself demonstrates that the taxpayers are unhappy and want answers. The municipality’s response, to strictly limit the time available per person and in total, was a poor start. Thirty minutes of discussion for all of the issues important to Wentworth’s residents is not enough, particularly in the exceptional situation which we are facing. Furthermore the aggressive tone of at least one councillor was unprofessional and unhelpful.
The people sitting near to me were upset by what they saw as a failure of the democratic process, given that their right to be heard and ask questions was being severely restricted. I worried that one gentleman would have a heart attack given his evident anxiety. Like most people in the room, he questioned why we were not permitted to raise all of our concerns and ask follow up questions when the answers were not forthcoming. We all are trying to understand how and why Wentworth got into the current unsatisfactory situation and how we can protect our environment going forward.
One way for the council to reduce the amount of time taken by questions would be for the council to respond openly and fully to all of the questions asked, rather than hide behind vague comments about legal concerns, present arguments that they cannot reply (such as the non-existent non disclosure agreements) and use their power to curtail discussions which the municipality seems to prefer to avoid (council meetings of August 5th and September 9th). These questions will not go away and without communication, the residents will make up their own minds about intent.
One example of a communication failure is the Council’s treatment of the Ryan report. There are many questions surrounding this report:

1. Why was taxpayer money spent on an incomplete, unprofessional and biased report to be handed to a developer?
2. What was the brief given to Ryan Affairs? Given the report’s serious and numerous failings as a summary of public opinion (please see my email of August 22nd, 2019 and correspondance of fellow residents), it is inexplicable to the residents that this document would not be returned to the writer for a complete rewrite or put in the garbage. Certainly the invoice for such poor work should not have been paid. So why has this not happened? Ms Black’s assertion that the report has been deposited and therefore could not be amended led to confusion. What, in this context, does deposited mean? Why could the report not be amended? Given the lack of clarification, inevitably Wentworth’s citizens will draw their own conclusions. One possibility is that the report says exactly what Wentworth asked Ryan Affairs to conclude and that the exercise was always no more than a public relations stunt.
3. Why would the council not discuss the Ryan Report at the September council meeting in order to explain their viewpoints to the community? Passing a resolution for the council members to defer taking a decision stifles input from the residents and creates more distrust.
4. Why has the council not responded to my letter about the Ryan report, or the comments submitted by other concerned citizens?

The communication issues have three levels. Firstly there is the lack of response to questions and a lack of information. Secondly there appears to be misinformation. According to CNN, misinformation means false information which is spread whether or not the intention was to mislead. Lastly, there may be disinformation, which involves the deliberate spreading of misleading information.
There are many examples of poor communication by Wentworth.

1. Where are the responses to residents’ letters? In particular, I have not yet heard from the municipality about my letters of August 22nd and August 27th, 2019.
2. Where are the minutes from the August 5th council meeting? Why have they not been posted online yet?
3. Why initially did Wentworth make it so difficult for residents to access the Ryan Report?
4. Why did Wentworth not ensure that Ryan Affairs included the red sign campaign, the red shirt campaign, the petitions and the residents’ correspondence prior to the June meeting in their report?
5. Why did the municipality choose not to advise the residents of the imminent WITRI plan before the re-zoning exercise was completed so that more residents could participate in the democratic process? We now know from the Ryan report that the mayor and officials of Wentworth had knowledge of the project before that time. The standard answer which Wentworth provides when asked this question is evasive. The municipality provides evidence that the basic minimum level of communication about the by-laws was provided and that they were under no obligation to mention the environmental threat on the horizon. However Wentworth does not address why they did not seek expert advice or participation from the whole electorate on the most important issue ever faced by the municipality.
6. The municipality has worked with the Lake Louisa Property Owners Association (LLPOA) for years to devise methods of protecting Lake Louisa, her wetlands and her watershed. Why does the municipality no longer seek the LLPOA’s advice, credit it’s representation of the residents or encourage the LLPOA to speak in meetings? In the body of the Ryan report, there was no mention of the number of people who are represented by the LLPOA or any weight given to the LLPOA’s submission. I attended one meeting at which some council members jeered when an LLPOA member rose to speak. This came across to the audience as rude and an attempt to intimidate. It looked like the councillors did not want to have to listen to the LLPOA’s views. The unanswered question here is when and why did Wentworth turn its back on the LLPOA given Wentworth’s urgent need for environmental advice and a mouthpiece for the community?
7. Why didn’t Wentworth provide detailed information to the near neighbours of the new zone RU6 before the by-law vote? Did it not occur to Wentworth that these properties would be seriously impacted by the changes which now permit race tracks, flying schools, amusements parks, firing ranges, 100 room hotels, spas and marinas on their doorsteps?
8. Given that the WITRI project would sit in the new RU6 zone on Lake Louisa’s watershed and very near to Lake Louisa’s north shore, why didn’t the municipality seek independent expert environmental advice before introducing by-laws to permit the zoning change in the fall of 2018?
9. The previous zoning of that area was Vtfd-25 (villégiature tres faible) in keeping with the urbanism plan in recognition of and to preserve the rural nature of our community. The new zoning designation of commercial recreotouristique contradicts this plan. Why?
10. What exactly has happened with the WITRI project? What did the municipality know and what interaction has the municipality had with the developer? A timeline would be appreciated. The residents should not have to read about this development in the news and online.
11. Where is the mayor’s response to the LLPOA’s requests for his resignation and a moratorium on the WITRI project? Given the mayor’s unfortunate absence from the September council meeting, the residents were unable to hear his response. I look forward to hearing from the mayor as soon as possible.

There appear to be several examples of misinformation.

1. When asking about the WITRI project, we are consistently told by Wentworth that it is only an idea, nothing more than that. Yet the mayor has told us that the developer’s biologist is already on site and we see a promotional commercial document from WITRI last year which shows a photo of the mayor with the developer and displays logos of Wentworth and the MRC. Furthermore, we have seen online plans labelled “The Lake District of Wentworth Golf Course presented by Jason Morrison February 24th, 2019,” So why is Wentworth still saying that the WITRI is nothing more than an idea?
2. When asked when the mayor first had contact with the developer, initially he advised that his first contact was in December 2018. The mayor later amended the date to August 2018. More recently we have been advised by Wentworth that the mayor had verbal contact with the developer in May 2018. Which date is right? What other forms of contact have taken place and when?
3. The councillors regularly say that the developer probably has not purchased any land yet. However where is the biologist working? If not on land owned by the developer then on whose land and on whose authority?
4. Whenever Wentworth is faced with the request to “fix it” and “press undo” to remove this existential threat to Lake Louisa (September 9th council meeting), there is either no response or the response is that there might be legal implications if it were to try. However, Wentworth agreed on Monday that the council could have chosen to vote against the new zoning by-laws in the autumn of 2018. It is this new zoning which most threatens Lake Louisa, her wetlands and her watershed.
5. Similarly, when asked if the municipality is under any legal obligation to the developer, the councillors’ answers are always an emphatic no. Yet Wentworth continues to refuse to drop the Ryan report and the letter, both of which are seriously flawed documents. From the residents’ perspective, it is hard to understand why not, unless there are legal considerations of which we are unaware.
6. For months we were advised that questions could not be answered due to a non disclosure agreement between the mayor and the developer. Subsequently, the mayor admitted that no such document exists.
7. The mayor also said that he has a verbal undertaking with the developer, details of which cannot be shared. Notwithstanding this, we are told that the developer presents no legal threat to Wentworth.
8. We were told in the May 6th presentation that Wentworth would surround itself with resource people to reflect together on this project. However so far it appears that the only extra resource which Wentworth has acquired is the help of lawyers and a public relations firm, presumably both paid for by taxpayers, to advise the council members and municipal officials on how to protect themselves. Why? What we need, and should be spending taxpayer money on, is expert help in how to protect our fragile environment.

Citing examples of disinformation is difficult because disinformation occurs when the information being spread is known to be wrong or biased, something which may be suspected but hard to prove when information is unavailable and questions are left unanswered. We don’t know whether or not some of the examples in the above section might more accurately be placed under disinformation.

1. An example of disinformation would be if the Ryan Report were to be sent to the developer or used in any way to indicate the view of residents. As the mayor confirmed, you would have to live under a rock to not have seen all of the red signs displayed on residents’ properties. Similarly, every official or council member who has read letters from the community or attended the council meetings must know that the residents do not feel that they have been heard. The report and letter are deeply flawed and the municipality knows it. Using this report in any way would be disinformation.

So, I end as usual with a plea for Wentworth to start communicating with its citizens in an open manner. Please explain what has happened and why Wentworth has legal worries and no legal worries at the same time. Please answer the questions and clarify the inconsistencies discussed above so that trust can begin to be rebuilt. Your citizens have a right to hear and to be heard. It is not too late to protect our community but Wentworth needs to be a positive force.

Yours sincerely,

Kathy Murray

Merci pour les nombreux appels et courriels d’encouragement reçus cette semaine. Nous ferons campagne de porte-à-porte dans notre communauté pour vous parler, faire la lumière sur les événements récents et partager des informations quant à notre appuie pour le candidat Philippe Cyr, dans ses efforts pour remporter le poste de conseiller ouvert du Canton de Wentworth.

Dans une récente communication, le conseil de Wentworth a déclaré que notre maire avait eu une interaction verbale avec le développeur de WITRI dès mai 2018. Cela semble diverger des déclarations antérieures faites par le maire. De nombreux résidents se rappelleront que cette nouvelle date est antérieure à celles indiquées lors des réponses aux questions des réunions municipales précédentes.

Malgré que l’APLL demeure consterné par la réponse de la municipalité à bon nombre de nos questions depuis les derniers mois, soyez assurés que nous continuerons à nous exprimer, à signaler les incohérences et à protéger vos intérêts environnementaux et vos droits démocratiques.

Nous sommes encouragés par votre soutien continu et avons hâte de parler avec vous.

L’équipe APLL
16 septembre 2019.

L’Association des propriétaires de Lake Louisa (LLPOA / APLL) a noté à plusieurs reprises qu’il était très irrégulier pour une municipalité de fournir à un développeur / promoteur potentiel un résumé des commentaires avant le dépôt du plan de projet et de présenter ses commentaires “ recueillies dans le cadre du processus d’audience publique », nous avons néanmoins examiné le rapport.

Respectueusement, la LLPOA / APLL demande aux conseillers de Wentworth de ne pas publier, distribuer ou rendre disponible ce rapport au format du 23 juin 2019 pour les raisons suivantes:

1. Le rapport de synthèse ne remplit pas son objectif tel qu’il est clairement indiqué sur la page de couverture et dans l’introduction. Plus précisément, le rapport de synthèse ne fait aucune référence aux organisations communautaires qui ont formulé des commentaires en personne et par écrit, exposant les préoccupations et les commentaires des membres de la communauté de Wentworth et des parties prenantes. Les deux omissions évidentes se rapportent à la LLPOA / APLL et à la Dunany Community Association (DCA). Ces organisations communautaires représentent les points de vue des plus grands groupes communautaires de Wentworth, ainsi que ceux de la majorité de la communauté de Wentworth. Ces organisations ont organisé de manière conservatrice plus de 100 réunions en 2019 et ont régulièrement fait part de leur opposition au golf et au développement à grande échelle envisagé par WITRD pour la zone RU6. En fait, le rapport de synthèse a également omis de communiquer que ces organisations représentent une partie importante de la population qui soutient et “accueille favorablement le développement si elle est faite avec discernement et conformément aux règles et réglementations en vigueur de tous les niveaux de gouvernement compromettre l’environnement “- comme indiqué dans les soumissions de la DCA et de la LLPOA / APLL. En outre, le rapport de synthèse mentionne des noms individuels et des commentaires anonymes, et indique que 18 mémoires et 11 présentations verbales ont été faits. et en revanche, le rapport de synthèse ne mentionne pas que le président de la LLPOA a retenu plus de 270 pétitions signées émanant de membres de la communauté et documentant une opposition généralisée au golf et au concept à grande échelle du WITRD.

Remarque: dans la section 1, Introduction, il est indiqué que «les audiences publiques avaient pour but de fournir aux citoyens de la municipalité et aux organisations communautaires un forum pour commenter le concept de développement du tourisme de loisirs de WITRI». La référence aux pétitions aurait dû être incluse dans le résumé, et la référence à un retour anonyme ne devrait pas être incluse dans le résumé.

En résumé: le rapport de synthèse n’atteint pas son objectif et il est inacceptable d’exclure les commentaires et les contributions des deux plus grandes organisations communautaires de Wentworth. Il est également inacceptable de ne pas mentionner les 270 pétitions de LLPOA / APLL. et inacceptable d’inclure des références provenant d’anonymes dans le résumé. Avant de publier ou de mettre le rapport de synthèse à la disposition du WITRD, tous les contributeurs devraient bénéficier de la protection de l’anonymat – si un contenu anonyme est inclus dans le résumé, l’annexe et le témoignage verbal.

2. Le rapport de synthèse omet de mettre en contexte l’inquiétude généralisée du public qui a conduit à l’embauche d’un cabinet de conseil pour aider le conseil à gérer le volume inattendu de lettres, courriels électroniques, etc. Comme le maire l’a dit à plusieurs reprises, pourquoi ils n’avaient pas répondu aux lettres des résidents dans un délai raisonnable, il a expliqué que c’était parce que le personnel et les conseillers avaient été dépassés par le volume des préoccupations et des demandes de renseignements exprimées par la communauté.

Remarque: lors de plusieurs réunions publiques tenues en 2019, le maire a promis que les premières lettres et appels téléphoniques exprimant l’inquiétude et l’opposition au concept WITRI seraient inclus dans l’évaluation globale du soutien de la communauté. Il semble que seules quelques lettres et commentaires soumis via le portail FAQ du site Web de Wentworth aient été inclus – les courriers et courriels ordinaires adressés à Wentworth et aux conseillers ont été exclus.

Conclusion: il est inacceptable que le contexte décrit ci-dessus n’ait pas été inclus dans le résumé. Il faut mentionner dans le résumé la référence aux préoccupations exprimées par la communauté de Wentworth et au volume ingérable de demandes d’appels et de courriers électroniques ayant entraîné l’embauche d’une entreprise de conseil en communications.

3. Le rapport de synthèse omet également de mentionner l’importante indication visuelle des préoccupations de la communauté représentée par des centaines de pancartes rouges installées dans les rues et le bord de l’eau de résidences privées du lac Louisa, de Wentworth et des communautés voisines.

Remarque: lors d’une récente réunion, le maire a déclaré: «Il faudrait vivre sous un roche pour ne pas être au courant de la campagne Red Sign» (… dans l’opposition). ]

En résumé: il faut inclure dans le résumé les centaines de signes rouges opposés au golf et au développement à grande échelle, ainsi que les signes rouges réclamant une protection accrue de la héronnière.

En résumé, l’APLL / APLL demande respectueusement que le rapport de synthèse du 23 juin 2019 soit considéré comme un projet ou un rapport préliminaire, et s’il est partagé avec la communauté de Wentworth que les projets de filigranes soient clairement visibles sur chaque page d’un document au format PDF.

Veuillez confirmer par écrit ou par courrier électronique à LLPOA / APLL la manière dont Wentworth prévoit de procéder pour répondre aux préoccupations susmentionnées.