Springer Market Square deal wasn't illegal after all...

[posting]

Well what do you know. The city's Springer Market Square deal wasn't illegal after all. So Kingston taxpayers have once again forked over thousands of bucks to defend a perfectly legitimate decision of their elected representatives. (Hello the DBIA Market Square levy which was appealed to the OMB, and the Llynlea housing development, also appealed by citizens at great expense to taxpayers, as two other recent examples). Worse than the money though, a handful of Market Square opponents, fired up and egged on, I'll add, by the Whig- Standard's insistence that there was something illegal about this deal, have smeared an important municipal project, seriously compromised a community fundraising initiative, dragged the Springer family name through the mud along with that of Mayor Harvey Rosen - only to find that their opinions do not stand up in law. The only real lesson we've learned here - and it is a lesson of value - is that Mayor Rosen, as he promised at the outset, is committed to positive change and to moving Kingston ahead even though that means continuing battles - even legal battles - with special interest groups who seek to bring the city down. Way to go Mayor Rosen. Hang in there. Oh and a suggestion for next time: Save yourself the money and the migraine and simply allow a week or two for people to complain before you pass a bylaw.

- I.M. Pertinent

[Lydia]

Unfortunately for the people who took interest in maintaining historical names.

Let's examine this decision that the Judge made. The reason this was not ILLEGAL was because it was a GIFT.

Hum,
1: Gift = As long as the Springer names stays forever
2: Gift = Springer had the RIGHT to make decisions on what happens at the square
3: Gift = Mayor can sell other historical names

Interesting what some people call a gift. I call a Gift = NO STRINGS ATTACHED WITH NO TIME LINES AND NEVER HAVING TO PROVIDE SERVICE OR RIGHTS TO THE GIVER.

Tax money has been spent unnecessarily due to THE MAYOR DECIDED HE CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS AND THE HECK WITH THE PUBLIC when it comes to naming rights.

Personally, I hope it does go to the Highest Court. We see Judges making mistakes and this one is certain one of them. However, that is only my opinion.

[Lydia]

Unfortunately for the people who took interest in maintaining historical names.

Let's examine this decision that the Judge made. The reason this was not ILLEGAL was because it was a GIFT.

Hum,
1: Gift = As long as the Springer names stays forever
2: Gift = Springer had the RIGHT to make decisions on what happens at the square
3: Gift = Mayor can sell other historical names

Interesting what some people call a gift. I call a Gift = NO STRINGS ATTACHED WITH NO TIME LINES AND NEVER HAVING TO PROVIDE SERVICE OR RIGHTS TO THE GIVER.

Tax money has been spent unnecessarily due to THE MAYOR DECIDED HE CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS AND THE HECK WITH THE PUBLIC when it comes to naming rights.

Personally, I hope it does go to the Highest Court. We see Judges making mistakes and this one is certain one of them. However, that is only my opinion.

[Don Anderson]

There it was on the front page of Wednesday’s Whig - as large as an O.J. Simpson verdict – “Market Bylaw Fair And Square”. Of course it was fair and square – just a little thing between friends. If the city thought the issue was any of our business, they would have encouraged public debate. That is what elected leaders responsible to voters do in a democracy. If my neighbor puts her car up for sale, it is business between someone who owns the car and someone buying it. What business is it of mine? and Nobody carried a football like O.J.

Unlike professional names like Kingston’s own Frontenacs or The Tragically Hip, Market Square’s name was heritage; something of value we owned without intention. Its value grew out of the collective memory and reputatioin of 200 years of locals in the open air, bargaining cash for goods. There was nothing glib in the naming of Market Square; nothing imposed or privately promoted in the shadows of political ambition and private interest. Market Square was simply generations of public memory; a valuable that until recently was without price; owned through realization. It never imposed itself on the public or owed its identity to a benefactor. It was likely named Market Square by farmers and housewives simply because it was a square where the goods they wanted to buy were marketed there by farmers selling them. It was just something we had that was ours, like a reputation. How can anyone buy a reputation without becoming known as a person who bought a reputation. We will still go down there and buy things from the same folks. It was a perfectly good reputation going to waste.

It was more an adoption - than a kidnapping. Adoption has an honorable tradition also; a process providing new beginnings and a new name for one whose destiny isn’t clear or may even be in jeopardy. A child is passed from one parent to another. It is not a deal so much but a legal process carried out in yet another long tradition of open courts. We don’t live in a Dickens novel. In our country it would be difficult to adopt anyone who had been kidnapped or purchased in the shadows of private interest. You would need court sanction in that case. What happened to Market Square could never happen to a person in our society. I'm feeling better already.

Market Square was a subtle idea that never imposed itself on the public as a landmark or a hyped cultural point of reference. Market Square was not Darwin, Minnesota’s largest ball of string or even the first thing that came to mind when folks thought about our city.

The endgame was surprising when the issue fell out of the many hands of reason and thanks to some witless racist repartee, into the hands of the more sophisticated victor. Check and mate! As for the verdict? No judge with any career ambition at all is going to get in the way of a well played race card. So whoever you are out there - I say, well played.

[I.M.Pertinent]

If the city does have to go back to court on this, I suggest it raise, in its defense, its own sign which has graced the 401 east of Kingston for many years. The sign that says "City Hall Historic Farmers Market." No "square" there at all. If Springer Market Square truly flaunts tradition and history, one would think a sign declaring City Hall Historic Farmers Market would be guilty of the same crime. Interesting there's all the to-do over the Springer naming but not one single objection to calling it City Hall Historic Farmers Market on the 401.

[DickTindal]

Dear I.M. Pertinent,

I assume that you are just living up to your initials and being a little “impish” with this latest missive. You are surely not suggesting that citizens who disagree with actions taken by their councils should not do anything because it might result in legal actions that cost money? Your closing advice to the Mayor is to allow people a week or two to complain before passing a by-law. But isn’t that the main problem surrounding this naming issue? People weren’t given time to reflect on the issue and to participate in a local democratic decision, because the council decided to hold the discussions of this matter in secret.

I still don’t know if the closed meeting was valid because the judge – according to quotes in a Whig article of January 25 – determined that it was not necessary to decide on the legality of the closed meeting since the decision was made in an open meeting. With respect, this seems to miss the point entirely. Even if the decision was made in an open meeting, which no one disputes, there remains the question of whether council had grounds for closing the earlier meeting at which the naming issue was discussed. If we accept council's belated explanation/rationale, we have to assume that the entire closed meeting was dominated by advice from the city’s lawyer, with councillors never exercising any judgment, or having any discussions, of their own. If that is what actually happened, it doesn't say much about the independent thinking of councillors. It is more likely, and is certainly a more charitable interpretation of the role played by the councillors, that the legal advice was offered during a portion of that meeting. Once council received that advice, and turned to a discussion of the issue, it presumably had no basis for continuing in closed session.

I see little to be gained, however, in prolonging a debate about legal technicalities. I am more interested in what council’s actions say about the city’s corporate culture and, more specifically, its commitment to openness – or lack thereof. Even if the Municipal Act allowed council to hold the earlier meeting in secret, it certainly did not compel it to do so. Council had full discretion as to whether the meeting (and discussion) should be open or closed. Presumably a primary reason that it chose to have closed discussions was that the Springer family wished to keep its offer a secret at that time. What council could have done, however, was to discuss in public – without mentioning any names – the general issue of naming rights and of whether a particularly generous gift might justify going so far as to rename the Market Square. Such public discussion would not have cut the public out of the equation, and might well not have generated as much negative response as council ultimately did receive. If the response was strongly negative, council would have learned of this before it made a specific decision, rather than after it. My point is that if a council is committed to public discussions, there were ways that this could have been done without ignoring the Springers’ preference for anonymity at the time. I believe that the way council chose to handle the issue is a major reason for the largely negative reaction that resulted – and which has detracted from the extremely generous gesture on the part of the Springer family.

To sum up, my main response to I.M. Pertinent is that the annoyance he directs toward the public for opposing council decisions might better be directed toward the council for the way in which it makes some of its decisions.

[macphail]

The only real lesson we've learned here - and it is a lesson of value - is that Mayor Rosen, as he promised at the outset, is committed to positive change and to moving Kingston ahead even though that means continuing battles....
Are you also proud of the direction taken by the City as sworn to in an Affidavit by a City Representative who stated that the City wanted the renaming process to be a quiet process so as to diminish public involvement that may have resulted in protest and delay.

What "lesson" are we to learn from this?

Cheers, Derek

[DickTindal]

Involving the public in local decision making certainly does often result in much controversy, debate, and delay. About the only thing that generates a more protracted and negative process is trying to keep the public out of local decision making.

[Lydia]

Exactly, It does cost more in the long run when decisions are made behind closed doors. Example being the sweetheart deals that governments make and the public forces to over turn them.

It almost seems that the scamers want things closed and not inform people of the advantages or disadvantages of projects.

I like the motto that Dr. Phil (i know i know ) uses. "It does not matter how you make a pancake it has two sides." The very same is true about projects. The only difference is whether the other side is so far burned (like my cooking) that it can not be swallowed by the public. :D :D :D

[Evelyn King]

:mad: IMPERTINENT, MAYBE IF YOU HAD SPENT THE DAY AT THE COURT HOUSE THE DAY OF THE HEARING, YOU WOULD CHANGE YOUR OPINION.

IT WAS STATED ON THE RECORD THAT IT WAS MEANT TO BE KEPT QUIET.

I PERSONALLY, APPRECIATE THE HERITAGE IN THIS GREAT CITY AND DO NOT APPRECIATE IT BEING SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER WITHOUT HAVING SOME INPUT.

I WORRY NOW ABOUT THE LOCAL FARMERS WHO SELL THEIR GOODS AT THE KINGSTON MARKET SQUARE, WILL THEY BE TURFED OFF BY THE SPRINGER FAMILY IF AN EVENT THEY WANT TO TAKE PLACE ON THE SQUARE FALLS ON A TUESDAY, THURSDAY OR SATURDAY? COULD HAPPEN.

DO YOU ATTEND ANY OF THE MEETINGS THAT YOU HAVE OPINIONS ON I.M.??

I EXPECT NOTHING IF I GIVE A GIFT.

REGARDS TO ALL,

EVELYN KING

[Lydia]

Market Square has always been part of Kingston's heritage where Farmers came and sold their wears. The name maybe bought but the public will always call it "Market Square".

Everytime, things are hidden, there is a dishonest activity associated with it. Everytime!!! Otherwise why would it not be open for anyone to see what is happening.

Last time I looked in the Directory, Gift = A present without strings attached. Gift = A present without expectations.

Hum, Isn't it interesing now that these people who hidden and bought a name change had both Strings and expectations.

I wonder what strings and expectations the voters will have?