HawthorneVillager.com

You really think your vote should count more than other people's? That's honestly the height of liberal arrogance.

Everyone's opinions matter, not just the ones that agree with yours or that got there the way you did.

Yes, the councilors' job is to represent their constituents. This isn't a dictatorship, it's a democracy. That doesn't mean they have to poll every issue, but it does mean they should take the wishes of their constituents into account in decision making. Especially in a decision that has such enormous long-term tax implications as this one.


(As an aside, why do people who are so eager to defend velodrome spending keep going out of their way to say they aren't pro-velodrome? .... never mind, it doesn't matter, just one of life's little mysteries... )

You seem to think the only well-reasoned arguments are those that agree with your holy 'business plan'. But here is another point of view for you: I sell for a living. I'm very good at what I do. A lot of my work involves doing business cases. And guess what? When I do a business case, that business case always recommends that purchasing my goods is the right decision. Wow, what a surprise!! How on earth does this happen??? Well, it's not magic. The input to the business case is how it happens.

Seriously, it's not that hard. The inputs (i.e., ASSUMPTIONS) into the business plan dictate how the business plan will conclude.

So color me unimpressed at councilors doing 'due diligence' by deciding in advance that they wanted a velodrome, paying 95K of our tax dollars to a consultant (who knows where is bread is buttered) to come up with a 'business plan', and then crowing "hey, the business plan calls this thing a go!".

And that's why so many of the recent posts are commenting on the inputs (i.e. ASSUMPTIONS) into the business plan. Although you didn't seem to recognize there comments as "pro-well-reasoned-arguments", please go back and re-read the questions raised by:

Bruce_Sharp (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43666&start=366),

Charlie Smedmor (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43666&start=381),

Joan (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43666&start=393),

badger (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43666&start=394),

Rick Malboeuf (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43666&start=404), and

Martin Capper (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43666&start=417)

just in the last few pages alone.

Someone was impressed. Staff seem to be proposing a $10k bonus to the consultant.

Thanks for the information Martin. If Council approves the above, the total amount of monies allocated from the Town.so far, will be at $285,100 which is over a $1/4M dollars (Dec. 5 council approved $95,000, on Jan. 30th approval given for $120,000 and $30,100) The concern is that no building has even started and the soft costs are mounting rapidly. Just wondering if Councillors are concerned about these mounting costs? What happens to costs when the town gets into the millions which are projected for building the Velodrome or even the 2.2million projected for site work which is totally the Town's responibility?

Someone calls for a bit of logic in the decision/debate and they get painted as a pro-velodrome liberal? You must have a lot of respect for the pro-velodrome and liberal crowds.

I don't think my vote should count more than anyones. Actually, if you look back through this thread, I haven't 'voted' at all. Why? Because I HAVEN'T read all of the documents regarding the velodrome. I don't have an informed opinion so I'm not comfortable giving one yet.

YES, councillors should take into account the wishes of their constituents! "Take into account", not "base their decisions on the results of a poll".

Everyone's opinions matter. Arguments carry more weight when they are based on facts.

Debate what is IN the business plan. Not what you think other peoples motivations are.

I'm not debating your motivations. Just pointing out some fallacies in your logic.

By all means, go ahead and read all of the documents before weighing in with your "informed opinion" then. Please also review the links I highlighted for you above which, despite your assertion to the contrary, do indeed contain well-reasoned arguments backed by facts.

Have a nice day.

Hello Noma:
I don't think the Town Poll is the only consideration which should be evaluated when proceeding to make a decision about the Velodrome. However, in the absence of anything else in a written format, from the resident, it's the best feedback that exists for the Councillors and Town Staff ,and it should be respected and should carry some "weight". -- 60% voted against.

As Milton Leo (Feb.26) pointed out, Nona, many strong arguments, on this discussion board, have been presented to support the "no" outcome of the poll.. As well,two Councillors, who are well versed in the Velodrome issue, voted against it. Vaughan and Mississauga, after examining the Velodrome plan, voted against it, due to high costs to their respective municipalities. Bruce Sharp, a Professional Engineer and Energy Consultant and Charles Smednor, a fornesic accountant, have expressed concerns about the cost overruns. Collectively, for the people who do not support the Velodrome, strong arguments have been put forth for not building the Velodrome.

I don't think there would be opposition to the Velodrome, if it were being built entirely with private monies as was done in California, the Carson City Home Depot Velodrome. This begs the question as to why the private sector, espeically those firms who are enjoying billion dollar profits, aren't "stepping up" to built the Velodrome, if for nothing else, than for the honour and naming rights.

Rick has stated that once he explains the details of the Velodrome, he converts people from "no" to "yes" I have asked Rick to explain the following from Schedule D of the Town's Contingency Plan which is suppose to cover the 2.5M donation from Laurier, which we now know is not forthcoming.
C1 Land endowment of 5 acres from Milton iv Landsfor Velodrome (current value vs serviced)-land donation previously identified by partner
C4 Benefiting partners road construction @50% of costs). These funds will be recovered from adjacent property associated with building the access
road to the site from Tremaine Road; set up as long term receivables.
According to the Town Staff the above are two methods for raising the 2.5M to replace the lost Laurier money. Yet, to my disappointment, no response has been received from Rick nor from the other Councillors, Mike Cluett. Zeeshan Hamid, Colin Best, who are avid supporters of the Velodrome. Here is an opportunity for these Councillors to alleviate some of the reservations that a resident has about what appears to be a huge shortfall in the financing of the Velodrome, which will result in the Milton Taxpayers having to cover this shortfall.

Not my motivations. You made some assumptions about the motivations of the councillors and the consultants that are irrelevant to the velodrome debate at best.

No, I never questioned the councilors' motivations, please don't put words in my mouth.

I do however think there is naivete and/or inexperience at play for anyone (councilor or otherwise) who accepts business plan's assumptions as fact.

Have you gone back and reviewed the posts I've highlighted for you yet?

No, you made the assumption that they had decided in advance that they wanted a velodrome. I missed where you give evidence to substantiate that statement.

I read the posts. They're a mixed bag of well reasoned and not. I'd debate them but my words would just get twisted around and I'd spend another page of posts explaining an re-explaining the same arguments and in the end Joan would still be waving a survey of 0.2% of the population around as evidence that the velodrome should not be built. Sorry, I'm just not up for it right now.

Well said Zeeshan

Rick M

Hello Zeeshan
What an "ungodly" hour to be posting on the forum, but I have had to get a second job in order to increase the income in our house, since everything from taxes to grocers is increasing and the income isn't keepng pace. As a result, the sleep schedule is "out of wack" I don't know if you find yourself in this kind of fnancial squeeze, Zeeshan, but 'm sure some on this forum, can identify with this kind of situation.

I'd like to respond to your statement "And if we get it wrong (which happens from time to time) then we'll lost our jobs in a very public job review process. Incumbents lose all the time when their voting patterns start to deviate from the desires of their constituents..It's just that the final determination of what our constituents actally want rests on us who are elected to make that judgement because it is us who'll go through the review of whether we did a good job representing their interests or not" Certainly this is true.

However, the other side of the coin is, if politicians get it wrong, residents are left with the legacy of a politician's poor judgement, and this often comes in the form of debt which residens can't walk away from. I do not want you to refer that this statement is directed at you or any other Councillor in Milton. However, generally speaking politicians seem to leave a legacy of debt for taxpayers. Politicians often say if you don't like my position, you can vote me out of office during the next election. Four years is a long time to wait, and the only other recourse, in the interim, is for residents to voice their opinions on forums such as this one. This is especially true when big ticket iems are involved such as the Velodrome. You could say this is a form of the "occupy movement".

There are, I believe, a goodly number of people in Milton who have expressed concerns about cost overruns and expressed their fear that the Velodrome will be costly for residents. and have provided credible support for their position. You appear, and I could be wrong, to have been offended by these statements and you have verbally berated these people by stating "There's an allusion in this forum that no one (other than people posting and those who agree with their positions) know how to do their jobs." This doesn't appear to be a fair statement to make, espeically in view of the fact that people have reached out to politicians for clarification of issues, and have not received any response. In trying to get a better understanding of the Contingency Plan to cover the $2.5M which is not forthcoming from Laurier, a request has been made for you and other Councillors to clarify the following:
C1-Land endowmentof 5 acres from Milton IV Lands for Velodrome (current value vs serviced)-Land endowment previously identified by partner (current value vs serviced)-Land donation previously identified by partner
C4-Benefiting partners road construction (@50%costs)-These funds will be recovered from adjacent property associated with building the access road to site from tremain Road, set up as long term receivable

No Councillor responded. Could you please explain, how does the above cover the up front capital coss of $2.5M whch is part of the funds to come from "private money"

I've been following this thread from the start. This would be my one and only post on this subject as i am not pro or anti-velodrome since i have not read the report or read too much into it except on here.

I understand that you are very against this Velodrome because you believe it is risking a high amount of taxpayers money. My question is if you are this against it, why don't you actively start a petition to stop the velodrome project or atleast e-mail your councillor and ask everybody else you know to e-mail their councillors. I haven't met any of Milton's councillors personally but the ones that post here seem to be very interested in their constituents input. If they receive enough opposition e-mails with proper explanation i believe they will change their mind unless you believe that our Milton's councillors are so stubborn that they will not care even what their constituents tell them.

The town poll may not change the mind of the councillor except the mayor as the councillors represent their ward constituents first and foremost and then the town as whole and if they believe their ward wants it then they have to go against the town poll.

Hello Zeeshan:
Thank you for your comments. The value of this discussion forum is that it allows comments to be freely shared.

You state: "There is no argument that there's risk."
Could you share your risk list and assign a cost to the items on your list as it relates to the Velodrome. This would further a better
understanding of your positiion to support the Velodrome.

Just to clarify where Items C1 and C4 are located. They are in Schedule D Velodrome Financial Sustainability Strategy Report 005-001-12, dated Jan. 30, 2012. This is the Staff Report which was provided to Council, and it is part of the information which was considered by Council who voted to proceed with the velodrome on Jan. 30 I'm looking forward to your clarification as to how these 2 strategies replace the 2.5M, private funding from Laurier, which we now know will not be donated. I'm trying to understand how these two strategies are not from Town funds.

Hello Colin:
The 3.8M which the Town is moving from the Sherwood Forest Community Center to the Velodrome, does this 3.8M cover the Town's portion for the Velodrome structure (referred to as capital costs) and is this Velodrome struture based on plans supplied by the Pan Am people?

Joan, this is a thread on Lower Base Line, not on the Velodrome. You should ask that question in that thread.