Comment 74674

By DanJelly (registered) | Posted February 23, 2012 at 00:01:02 in reply to Comment 74656


Since this was a real estate analysis done by Cushman and Wakefield, I'm not sure how ECSC is relevant to the discussion. If I'm missing something please enlighten me.

This isn't about the math, I analysed and explained the math in my breakdown. The sheer fact that the "differenciation factor" was left as a variable element in the process raises questions about who was making these decisions, who changed it, and when? If it's derived from a 'master spreadsheet' as trustee Bishop suggests, then why did this field simply not just point to the master? Why were hundreds of errors introduced and taken to the point of publication?

Again, who selected the criteria? Who defined the priorities? I shouldn't have to chase these answers down from a consultant (who will likely tell me it's a confidential matter between them and their client). If the process is clear and transparent, then the Board and Staff of the HWDSB should be able to answer these very straightforward questions, and yet they have not.

They should also be able to answer repeated requests by myself and others for the specific cost of renovating 100 Main St. West. They have ignored and evaded this question at every opportunity. Again, why?

Public money has been spent on this process. Publicly owned buildings are at stake. The process should be out in the open for all to see.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools