Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Ok, but I’m actually asking if that was the way the consultation was prefaced?
Whether the outcome is predetermined or not doesn’t have anything to do with the “honesty” of a consultation, unless you’re completely distorting what a consultation actually is and trying to position it as a vote.
…
While I was writing this post I looked more into it, and it looks like it wasn’t prefaced as any sort of discussion or consultation, it was just a public notice (of which all approved developments go through) and anyone can appeal any approved development at any time and some advocacy group happened to glom on to this one?
So, it’s not like the city specifically set out to consult with anyone on whether they should go forward with this, is it? It had already been approved by the time the responses started coming in? Am I wrong here? Cause it doesn’t seem like the city is the group being dishonest here…
|
I don't know really know how to respond, really. They put out notice saying this is what they want to do and asked for public input. got the input and then just do whatever they were doing anyway. I call that dishonest, but maybe that's the wrong term?
Honestly, I don't care enough to continue this same tired conversation (not with you, just on this topic). I know we're stuck with this and it's a done deal. Just build it already and let the chaos begin.
I will say, if they get this done and I love the new Glenmore Landing, I will admit it. Maybe they have really figured everything out and my concerns are unfounded.