Devious wrote:
Wish is my command. Actually, on most things I completely think you are off your rocker, but hey, not my councillor, and why not have the NO man sometimes around.
+1
By the way this thread has played out it seems Zeeshan is a Councillor who looks at a situation, assesses the risks and makes a decision. Malboeuf is a Councilor who has a position and finds any little piece of information to support his claim so subjective arguments are de rigueur. That is why he seems to be off his rocker.
Example, from the "Velodrome really?" thread;
Rick Malboeuf wrote:
I was one of the 2 councillors who voted against our moving forward on this velodrome. My reasons for doing so are simple, I do not believe for 1 minute that Milton tax dollars will not end up being funnelled into this facilty. Somewhere down the road, we will pay. How many times have we heard politicians make the promise " trust me it won't cost you the taxpayers a dime, we have a plan "....
I call this "
faith-based governing" since it requires a lot less work. In other words, even if the numbers come back in favour of the Velodrome, Rick will not "
believe" them. I would respect Rick's "faith" if he backed it up with "science". In other words, if Rick found out that of the last 10 public buildings Milton built 9 went over budget by a margin of 40% and their operating budgets added x% to municipal taxes then I would have a reason to "believe".
Based on this thread I'm guessing the other Councillor who voted with Rick M. is Martin Capper. Rick M. and Martin C., by the way I am all for being skeptical of this project but base it on objective criteria. The business case should provide quantitative values for risk and their corresponding probabilities. Every project has risks. What is acceptable to you? If you say 0% probability of risk, then that is still faith-based governing.