5 Responses to Stay Out Of Our Wallets, John Tibbits

  1. Sandra Hill February 23, 2012 at 7:27 am

    Allan I think your missing the point – The Cambridge Conestoga College was given the land under contract with an appraisal completed in 2003 – Appraised Value $5 million
    The college paid the City of Cambridge back the original $4.4 million in 2008

    What the College is stating is that the City was bound by a contract in 2003 – value of land $5 million – and the College agreed and paid the City for the land value

    What really gets me is why did Craig complete another appraisal in 2008 – and who did this appraisal? These values do not add up – 50% increase in value over 5 years – I would like to use this appraiser when I am completing a mortgage for my clients
    How much did this cost the taxpayers to complete the 2nd appraisal?

    Craig needs to be transparent and show us the appraisal reports from 2003 and 2008 with the cost to complete – The value in 5 years – Doubles – I believe this is incorrect
    Allan get a copy of the contract and appraisals – who is telling the truth?

    Allan if you had a contractual agreement you can not go back on your word.

    Another item why did the City of Cambridge allow a holding tank for sewage at the College site – when their own by-law states in the City of Cambridge that holding tanks are prohibited within City limits

    Why did Craig allow the sewage to be carried by truck to the Preston Heights area and be dumped down a manhole in a subdivision of residential properties instead of dumping at the sewage plant? I would suggest the cost of the tipping fee was expensive and the City did not want to pay.

    Why did the City of Cambridge prior to development not have a plan in place for the water and sewage pipe development?

    The College will bring more development to the area and create jobs to Cambridge

    We can not afford the City to keep turning away Job Creators – with the development fees the City of Cambridge is charging $11.00 per sqft why would anyone develop and bring jobs to this City when they can go to Guelph and develop for $4.00 sqft

    Please look into this before you jump!

    Let me know what you find out

  2. Allan Dettweiler February 25, 2012 at 1:19 am

    Sandra, I’m not even talking about the value of the land or the appraisals. Or the sewage problem
    Sure, Craig and Tibbits are arguing over that. Let them argue.
    Dougie, apparently, believes Cambridge has already given the College a benefit of $5,000,000 because of the supposive increase in the value of the land. I doubt the land has risen in value to that extent. But, that’s not what I am talking about.
    What I am ticked at is that Tibbits wants $6,000,000 from Cambridge taxpayers. A handout. The School of Architecture got a hand-out and now Tibbits has his hand out.
    Cities should not be subsidizing education costs.
    It seems to me Mr. Tibbits and the College were more than willing to pay the $8,000,000 cost to service the new college. If they had wanted a cost-sharing plan, they should have discussed that at the time.
    Bottom line is that there will be very little benefit to Cambridge taxpayers.
    Oh there may be more jobs created if the area around the new College property is developed. But don’t think for a moment taxes will come down for Cambridge taxpayers as a result.

    http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/673570–conestoga-college-president-says-cambridge-should-financially-help-new-campus

  3. les kadar February 25, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    As much as I agree with John that he also should receive the same gift as did the school of Architecture, I agree with that we should not be paying additional monies for education.
    Our taxes should be covering it all, or none. We need to make up our minds.
    Same goes for the Hospital and all the other government funded services which are partially paid for and then require fund raising to complete the job or ” top it up ” to meet the communities needs.
    The needs of communities are more than obivious. If the items are required to keep us healthy and smarter then it needs to be covered in the taxes being collected.
    The bottom line problem is the huge amount of duplication, waste and special projects, mega salaries for political cronies and on and on, that are pounded through the system, taking away available funds from the above and much more that are trully ” services ” that the public are supposed to by paying for but no longer getting.
    The single biggest accounting sin in government is the system of using the ” general fund ” as the catch-all basket into which all of taxes go.
    In this way, nobody can figure out how much money is collected for what ,,, ie the tire tax just to name one. The public therefore cannot point to a service and determine how much money has been allocated to it based upon the taxes that have been raised in it’s name.
    This leaves all politicians indemnified from being accused of missing funds for such things as education, health care and so on.

  4. Lary Turner February 26, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Good point, Les.

  5. les kadar February 26, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    oops, in the second line it should have stated, I agree with Allan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Links