Councillor Walker asked Karen Stintz if the Working Group came to the consensus she claimed in her address to Council. She avoided his question and responded by saying that "the residents that are directly impacted by this development came to the consensus we have achieved".
This of course is not at all true. Remember the deputations of the EPRA Board Members? Remember the deputations from the members of the Stanley Knowles Cooperative? These, and others not shown here but which exist, prove that no such consensus existed. In fact, the unanimous consensus reached by the community was ignored by Karen Stintz when she presented only her own private agreement with the developer.
Councillor Walker was aware too of some 200 names on petitions and speculated that there was more. He knew many of these people and knew them to be from the immediate area. Karen Stintz then extends the lie by claiming the Working Group and the Stanley Knowles Cooperative came to "an informed decision".
This statement is not true either. There were many questions still unanswered on that last day of Council. Questions for which Councillor Stintz had refused to secure answers. These answers would have weakened the developer's case and exposed the farce.
Politicians have a shelf-life and we have seen in the past what happens to representatives whose shelf life has expired. As we sweep the lawns of leaves, Ward 16 residents should be thinking about the needed change of who represents us at City Hall.
Have a look at this episode and ask yourself if this is the level of integrity you want from your local councillor?
