Response to complaint filed with Ombudsman: “baseless & without merit”

On Oct. 20, I was notified that three households (four residents) in my Ward have together filed a complaint against me with the Ontario Municipal Ombudsman regarding my public comments in my role as City/Regional Councillor for Ward 2 Burlington about the city’s decision to sell publicly-owned waterfront land between Market Street and St. Paul Street in my Ward.

View of lake from public path between Market & St. Paul

View of lake from public path between Market & St. Paul

I am confident that the allegations will be shown to be baseless and without merit, bordering on the libellous. I welcome an investigation that will clear up the incorrect information that is being circulated, so that we can have a reasonable discussion on an important matter of public policy, that being whether public waterfront land should remain in public hands or be sold to private homeowners.

This action is an unfortunate diversion from the main issue at stake, which is the sale of public waterfront land. I hope that we can return to discussing the issues respectfully, and agree to disagree respectfully.

The full text of my public statement in response to this complaint is below, along with links to the complaint, and the court case cited.

I remain committed to full public dialogue on this issue, including with the homeowners/complainants in this case.

Statement from:   Marianne Meed Ward, City/Regional Councillor, Ward 2, Burlington

Date:                          Oct. 21, 2014

Re:                              Complaint filed with Ontario Municipal Ombudsman

On Oct. 20, I was notified that four residents (three households) have together filed a complaint against me with the Ontario Municipal Ombudsman regarding my public comments in my role as City/Regional Councillor for Ward 2 Burlington about the city’s decision to sell publicly-owned waterfront land between Market Street and St. Paul Street in my Ward.

The complaint has been shared publicly with the media and other members of council and city staff. Those links are below.

Ombudsman Complaint

Ombudsman – Press release

Memo to Clerk

View from Market Street with fence

View from Market Street with fence

These residents are private homeowners adjacent to the land in question and are in discussions with the city and the Ministry of Natural Resources to buy it for private use. When council voted 6-1 to sell the public waterfront land to the private homeowners, it was against the recommendation from city staff to retain the land, over the objection of more than 125 residents who wanted the land kept in public hands, and against a backdrop in which our own staff acknowledged that the city failed to meet its own standards of public engagement on this issue.  The Burlington Waterfront Committee, a citizen’s group with members across the city, filed a complaint to the Ombudsman regarding the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, including council’s failure to release relevant court cases that informed the decision and that are public record but very difficult to find on one’s own.

The residents who have filed the complaint disagree with my vote against selling this publicly-owned waterfront land. They have cited a 1993 court case in this matter, detailed below. One section of the public walkway is fenced at one end, but that fencing was not, contrary to the statements made in the complaint to the Ombudsman, a result of “a court order.” The court decision in fact reinforces that the land is in public hands.

Difference of opinion about a public issue is light years away from dereliction of duty.

I am confident that the allegations will be shown to be baseless and without merit, bordering on the libellous. I welcome an investigation that will clear up the incorrect information that is being circulated, so that we can have a reasonable discussion on an important matter of public policy, that being whether public waterfront land should remain in public hands or be sold to private homeowners.

I will not be intimidated into silence by this action. I will not allow these actions to have a chilling effect on public discourse on a matter of significant public interest.

I have and will continue to speak openly on this issue and to make my position and my vote clear, transparent and accountable. I will continue to notify the public about this issue, and seek public input.

I will continue to advocate for the public interest on the waterfront. My commitment is to keep public waterfront lands in public hands. Period. I will not waver from that position.

I will work to get the balance of the court cases that deal with this matter on the public record. I will work to reverse the decision to sell this land. If any sale goes through, I will work to ensure residents get a price reflective of the appraised value, and that this price be made public. The Ministry of Natural Resources is required to get full market value for its portion of these lands and release the sale price. The city needs to hold ourselves to the same standard.

I have gone above and beyond what is typical or expected of a councillor to be accountable and transparent about my own views, and to make the public aware of this issue and invite feedback. I have extensively written about this matter through my constituent newsletter, In Your Neighbourhood, website (ward2news.ca), social media sites, video, and via a flyer hand delivered to residents in the immediate area. I have also featured this information in my election material. All of this is publicly available online:

Ward 2 News:

http://ward2news.ca/downtown-waterfront/burlington-council-poised-sell-public-waterfront-land/

http://ward2news.ca/downtown-waterfront/sale-burlington-waterfront-land/

Vote Marianne:

http://votemarianne.ca/burlington-election-2014-waterfront-access-beachway/

https://votemarianne.wistia.com/medias/3v419k195y (VIDEO)

Flyer: scroll down to “why sell”

http://ward2news.ca/downtown-waterfront/burlington-council-poised-sell-public-waterfront-land/

Council voted to retain “windows” at Market/St Paul but sell “parkette” between them.

Council voted to retain “windows” at Market/St Paul but sell “parkette” between them.

At all times I have been open with residents about the key issues, the varying positions, and my take. I stand by all my public communications in this matter. They have been a model of transparency, accountability, and the quest for broad public input.

I have met with the adjacent homeowners several times prior to the vote and have been at all times very open and clear with them that my position is that public waterfront land should stay in public hands. We discussed their specific concerns about vandalism, parking, the construction of the seawall, and the offer of one or more of the homeowners to financially contribute to a “windows on the lake” at the road end. These matters have also been discussed publicly, at the public committee and council meetings and in various other public forums, raised by themselves, other residents or myself.

These issues have had a full public hearing.

I have listened carefully to the residents’ concerns, which are raised for other parks in the city as well. In the end, I found the concerns persuasive to finding solutions to them – as we do when these issues arise in our other parks – but not persuasive to selling public waterfront land to private homeowners.

Following their latest correspondence, I offered to meet again and they refused. At their request, their correspondence was also forwarded to the Burlington Waterfront Committee, which responded independently.

Background, and the 1993 court case, Khanna v Mysko, 1993:

The 1993 court action cited (Khanna v Mysko, 1993) is related to the purchase price of the home, brought by the current owner (Khanna), against the seller (Mysko). Khanna (the purchaser and current owner) sought a reduction in the purchase price because the property did not include the water lots adjacent to the shoreline – these parcels were, and still are, publicly owned.

Mysko (the seller) in defending against the reduction in the sale price argued (Section 15) that “while the plaintiffs may not have title to the water lots, they do have possession and use of the lands as well as the enjoyment of same.” Mysko further argued that under “sec. 299 of the Municipal Act… the plaintiffs are entitled to fence the lands and exclude all persons from the lands with the exception of the municipality and the crown.” Thus, Mysko (the seller) argued (Section 16) that in calculating any reduction in the sale price, the court should consider that the purchaser can nevertheless use and enjoy the land. The purchasers (Khanna) “disagree with this position.” (Section 16)

The court took into consideration the fact that Khanna (the purchaser) does not own the lands when determining the reduction of the purchase price against Mysko. The court ruled that since the public lands in question represented 35% of the property, the purchase price was reduced by 35%. By court order, the original purchase price of $545,000 was thereby reduced by $190,750. (Refer to the text of the decision, p2 under “HELD”)

Nowhere in this decision did the court “order” the lands to be fenced and the public be excluded. In fact the court decision reinforces that the land is in public hands, and reduced the purchase price by the exact percent of land that is in public hands.

At some point, this public property was fenced off. The balance of the public lands behind the homes between Water Street and St. Paul Street are not fenced. All of these lands are public. The municipality and the crown cannot be excluded from these lands (Section 15).

My position has been and remains that we retain this public shoreline land in public hands, and reclaim any land that has been fenced for public use.

– 30 –

Thanks! You've already liked this
4 comments