The public deserves answers says reader

To the Editor:
The public deserves answers:
1. Why has council ignored a previous Master Plan stating that the beach was to REMAIN a ‘family orientated’ beach NOT a commercialized beach?
2. Why was the only Train of its kind in Canada, a monstrous tourist draw, put out of business and the property levelled in haste?
3. True consultation takes place in the planning process. Why does council keep insisting that consultation has taken place over the last three years when the CCV plan was presented to council in 2019 without the public’s knowledge?
4. Why was only ONE RFP (request to develop on the beach) received knowing the popularity of beach tourism and an important business opportunity?
5. Why did council ignore the WMP (Waterfront Master Plan) Stakeholder section that stated stakeholder’s opinions would provide the basis for all beach
  developments? This WMP recommendation of annual beach interviews was ignored.
6. Why did council disband the WAC (Waterfront Advisory Committee), as recommended by the WMP authors to guide all beach developments, just before    the CCV reveal? The WMP was clear on this committee staying active until most beach development was completed. We have hardly begun!
7. Why has every deputation to council concerning the CCV been met with a wall of silence for THREE years? Review any past council meeting to witness this.
8. Why has council made a mockery of the Municipal Act’s requirement to be ‘transparent’? E.G. they refuse to release financial records (our tax dollars)    surrounding the CCV preparation costs. They have also refused to engage all CCV deputations to council.
9. Why has council ignored the community’s overwhelming request NOT to construct a large building on the beach? Two surveys, one 95% and the second    82% confirm that statement.
10. Why has council attempted to confuse the public by calling the big building a banquet hall, them a conference centre, then a storage space and the latest  a market hall? The view blocking two story structures (which will rise higher than a telephone pole, 44 feet) are still in the plan and the public still DO NOT WANT this huge structure on our beach.
11. Why has council attempted to ignore environmental standards as stated by the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority? They have feebly argued that the recommendations by two respected geo-scientists are not important. This is alarming in today’s environmentally aware world.
12. At one Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority meeting, who directed the ex engineer to fabricate why the beach walkway damage occurred ? It was not the temporary break wall road. Pictures prove that high water did the damage and that confirms our beach is ‘ever changing’, in other words DYNAMIC.
13. Why were Saugeen Shores councillors, also SVCA members, allowed to contradict the SVCA decision to build on a ‘dynamic beach’?  The Municipal Act is very clear on ‘conflict of interests’ rules.
14. Why is council still ignoring environmental standards and refusing to properly test the beach to guarantee the public’s safety? The second Casino was torn down because it started to sink.
15. Without a shred of evidence to prove that a year round operation on the beach will work, why are we being told that it will? Look at Sauble and   Kincardine to prove that year round DOES NOT work on a beach especially with increasing and unsettling climate change weather.
16. Industry standards note that lease lengths range from 5 years to 10 years in special circumstances. Without any research as to the ramifications of granting a 50 lease, council was forced to declare our priceless beach as ‘SURPLUS” to legalize the CCV lease signed 3 years ago. Who is responsible for this major miscue and more importantly why did council agree to a 50 year lease exceeding the accepted standard by decades?
17. Our community continues under rapid growth. Educated development demands appropriate park space as well. Why has council ignored that fact by     agreeing to shrink our small beach by approximately 20,000 sq. ft.? That compares to 81 school buses in ground space alone.
18. On multiple summer days for the last few years the beach is FULL of parked vehicles. Approximately 20,000 sq. ft of valuable beach will disappear if the CCV present plan is allowed. If they can no longer find parking, tourists will find other beaches which will directly and negatively effect our annual $70 million tourist income. That money directly sustains 85% of every business in this community. Why won’t council speak to this?
This is just a sprinkling of council mis-steps forcing an unwanted albatross into our community. All council had to do was follow the intent of two beach related studies and this controversy would never have happened. Of course the obvious question becomes, why didn’t they?
Our Community has watched council make CCV decisions for e.g. without prior permission from provincial regulations. We have witnessed new bylaws being passed to thwart accepted previous standards. We have witnessed questionable interpretations of existing regulations. Council has ignored their own mandates. (E.G. Strategic Plan says not to build on environmentally sensitive areas). The largest faux pas remains not representing us, the overwhelming community majority.
Port Elgin