I received this email.
I wanted to understand how things went down with the the LNG Deal.
I recall this clearly: Before the Mayor asked them to vote that night; the mayor met with some Councillors individually and informed some more then others.
Hooton said she was asked by the Mayor to not discuss anything after her private meeting.
Ivan Court was not informed about an early meeting to be at Council and a meeting went on without him. When he arrived he was told shortly before council was going to commence, no time to get more information.
A vote was made and all had been decided before so the Deal was passed.
Most asked their questions but the group as a whole wanted the Deal.
Next council meeting Hooton passed a motion to rescind and Hooton was allowed to give her rescinding speech.
Court wanted to rescind but because Hooton was given the opportunity by the Mayor to pass her motion, Court could not ask or speak on the item. Had Councillor Court been able to rescind we would have at least had a chance revisited the tax deal.
Also he would have brought out more facts.
It was known from the start they had to keep Councillor Court out of the loop.
Finally next Council meeting, Councillor Court brought forward a motion and asked if someone would second his motion to revisit the tax deal and no one would second his motion; Court wanted to obtain information on the dangers and also more information for a better tax deal; wanting what was right for the people of Saint John.
Other areas were automatically given millions under similar deals. Hooton was not there and therefore did not have to second Courts motion; convenient or what!
On CFBC she said she voted against the Deal everytime. But all along she said she was only against the process," this was flawed" she quoted.
Never once did she ever defend on the fact that this was not a fair tax deal or did she ever try to help Councillor Court revisit the deal.
While she has been acting like she was representing us in reality she was not representing the taxpayers just her corporate friends whom she met with and a plan was staged and the rest is history or Hooton's version of history.
PS Oh yes Hooton had time for a "move on speech " but at no time did she ever want to try to help the taxpayers of Saint John who were only asking to get fair municipal tax dollars in an area that has been in need for far too long.
6 comments:
Shame, shame. That is not the way to run the city. Then there is a problem right at the top as Lord himself operates in that way and runs the province in that manner. We must put an end to this Lordism where wishes of th public do not matter.
Ivan Court for mayor!!
he will lead sj to the promise land. the one where the good lord is.
Let put it this way Ivan Court is a fair person and has tried to help the people but for some reason the Mayor and some councillors will refer important issues or not second a motion before the taxpayers ans citizens even knows what is going on.
Yes Hooton were are giving you the Booton and until you revisit the deal we won't drop it/ fair taxation, not much to ask from someone who says she would revisit the Deal.
She did indeed shift her position from the first vote to the second vote.
In her first vote, she seemed to express honest thoughts on the matter. She sounded and looked upset. She complained about the LNG deal itself. It was clear to me that on that difficult night of the first vote Ms Hooton disliked both the content of the deal and the process of forcing the deal through at the 11th hour.
I was very impressed with her that night. She argued that the LNG deal is a bad deal. I remember that she stated this in various ways. She indicated that Saint John is a poor city and it cannot afford to give this kind of money away. ‘How can we do this’, she asked council. She indicated that it just did not seem right when the city is desperately in need of tax dollars. As she is quoted in this Saturday’s paper, she said “I would like Irving to do everything they can to make this project happen, but 25 years to sit at a fixed tax rate, I don’t think that is fair to Saint John.”
She was also very frustrated by the time frame of the vote and the pressure that the Mayor and the Irving Company put on Council. It was a matter of forcing them to do something or else. Vote for it now, or lose an unspecified number of jobs and possible vague spin offs that the city’s economy was suppose to enjoy.
So, that evening she voted against the LNG tax break and she shows real courage in doing it. She voted against it on the basis of the content of the deal as well as on the process by which the deal was forced through Council by the Mayor and those who voted in favour of the deal.
The deal was bad, and it was an example of unfair taxation. She also said that she did not believe that the terminal would not be built if Council refused to give the deal. Also the process was bad.
So she votes “no,” and the minutes of the Council record the reasons for the vote, and they are both process and content, with the emphasis being on the bad content of the deal.
“Deputy Mayor Hooton advised that she has difficulty resolving the issue citing obligation to all taxpayers to maintain a fair taxation system. She added that she had doubts that the Terminal would not proceed in Saint John without the tax incentive proposed.” (Council minutes from last March)
Then for the second vote, something happens. Something has changed. It always seemed to me that Ms Hooton was out on a limb and she wanted off that limb. I have heard that she has expressed the fact that she was afraid at that time to be “going up against the Irvings in this town” and that people outside the situation may not understand that. Also, she said it was not easy going against her Mayor.
Whatever the case, Ms Hooton seems to shift the reasons for her opposition to the deal. Now, the idea that the content of the deal is bad seems to be falling be wayside. She wants to pull back on that criticism and now her objection is to the process of the deal… that is the ‘backroom’ nature of the process.
The motion to rescind the previous decision of Council calls for the City Manager and the appropriate staff to prepare a report with recommendations related to the possibility of providing a tax incentive to the developers of a proposed LNG Terminal. It does say that “the report should touch on the subject both from a public policy and public process perspective.” (Council minutes from last March)
However, now Ms Hooton’s reasons for rescinding are summarized in the Council minutes as relating only to the process of the deal.
“Deputy Mayor Hooton stated that Council must reflect the will of the public and gave its debates in a transparent fashion.” (Council minutes from last March)
In contrast to Ms Hooton, Councilor Ivan Court votes to rescind citing “lack of process, flaws in reports, and unfair taxation.”
So this stepping back from a clear statement on the unfairness of the tax deal on the first vote and voting to rescind on the basis of process marks Ms Hooton’s transition on the issue. There is a definite shift here that is quite dramatic when you contrast what she said in support to rescind and the first vote. The unfairness of the deal is no longer the central point of her opposition to the LNG deal.
If you check out the minutes from council from that period in time you will see that:
Vote 1: “Deputy Mayor Hooton advised that she has difficulty resolving the issue citing obligation to all taxpayers to maintain a fair taxation system. She added that she had doubts that the Terminal would not proceed in Saint John without the tax incentive proposed.”
Vote 2: “Deputy Mayor Hooton stated that Council must reflect the will of the public and have its debates in a transparent fashion.”
Lately, when Ms Hooton talks about her consistency in voting, and this is repeated by Ms Hrabluk, there is a lack of recognition the nature of the two votes were different and that the reasons for voting are quite different. The reason she gave for her first no vote, namely unfair taxation, is now called her first knee jerk on the issue. She refuses to call this her first position on the issue but employs the ‘knee jerk phrase’ to qualify her stand. It seems to me that for the next vote she objects mainly, if not only, to the process. In between votes she seems to have become convinced of the value of this large tax break for the LNG terminal. Now she blurs the reasons for her votes and denies any change in her view and pleads that she has been consistent.
Hooton is hoping no one is checking up on what she has said. Dare I say it's good for the public to see that when the pressure is on Ms. Hooton isn't strong enough in her convictions to see it through. Something we need to know when casting a vote on the 14th.
I don't know if you noticed but the Mayor and Hooton both had their speeches ready; probably written by the same person. Ivan never got to say what he wanted; he was shut up ; by Hooton.
Post a Comment