From a procedural standpoint, questions have been raised about the appropriateness of relying solely on a privately commissioned engineering report when pursuing such an outcome. In fact, a judge has rejected that as a remedy. From a human perspective, at least part of the property is currently occupied, adding an important layer of sensitivity to the situation.
The Hamiltonian does not support criticizing or singling out the Mayor simply because she is a property owner confronting a difficult and complex circumstance. As with any matter involving public officials and private property rights, careful consideration of all relevant facts is essential before drawing conclusions or assigning blame.
The situation objectively involves a judicial decision that a municipal emergency demolition order was invalid because a statutory inspection requirement was not met. That is fact. Narratives asserting misconduct, hypocrisy, or double standards are interpretative and not grounded in the legal record as reported. Nor are such attacks supported by The Hamiltonian.
The Hamiltonian hopes that a remedy is arrived at that satisfies the concerns while not leaving anyone homeless.
I do think it is fair to ask whether the mayor was able to obtain the demolition permit without the necessary inspection as a result of her position. For Hamiltonians to be confident in what happened the integrity commissioner must look at this issue from start to finish. If strings were pulled or favours were called then conflict of interest issues have to be addressed. If all is well, then the public should know that too.
ReplyDelete