res_7499 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and to make as impersonal a presentation as is possible in view of the circumstances. The original petition that was presented to the Council was dated October 4, 1982. It was sub- mitted, according to the stamped date, on January 5, 1983, followed by an additional submission on February 9, 1983, and a third submission which was presented later. After the third submission, with the additional names, the signature percentage of 52.6% was finally achieved. As you have been made aware, a number of objections were raised at the conclusion of the March 14 meeting, when all of the ten projects proposed were passed unanimously, even though objections and misunderstandings were stated. The petition in opposition is dated March 20, 1983, con- taining the signatures of 19 homeowners who are opposed to the improvement, including the names of five homeowners who had originally and mistakenly signed the petition which was pre- sented to the Council previously. In this project there are a total of 33 homeowners affected. Nineteen - or 57% - are opposed to the present project. They represent a total combined front footage of approximately 2,994 - I'm sorry, there is a total of approximately 21994.75 front feet, as set out in the diagram which is on the wall. Of the front footage thus represented, the homeowners in opposition own 1,612.83 front feet, or 53% of the front footage. There also were three homeowners who signed neither petition. If you accept the fact that homeowners who have not signed the petition in favor of the improvement are not for the improve- ment, then the percentage of homeowners involved is 62% by front footage and, in numbers, is 67%. I would like to read a letter dated March 17, 1983, directed to Mr. Andre, the City Manager. Dear Mr. Andre: At your request, I am enclosing a copy of.the flyer that my wife and I distributed in our neighborhood, opposing the proposed improvement. In addition to this flyer, a blank copy of our petition is attached. Please note that the description of the project on my petition is identical to the description on the petition in favor of the project. What my wife and I t~ied to do with our flyer and petition was to merely state our position to see if other homeowners were in agreement. We were up front with this to give everyone in the neighbor- hood the opportunity to read the material and call us back if they felt as we did. We made a special effort to give the people adequate time to think about the opposing view instead of pressuring them as standing inside their homes until they reached a decision. In fact, we asked them to take the initiative and telephone us if they wanted to sign. Our position in the flyer was, and still is, that our street - Galtier Street - from Iona Lane to County Road C-2 - is in good condition. For us and those homeowners who agree with us, the net effect is concrete curbs and gutters. The bituminous street is covered on the petition itself if some- one should say that this portion of the improvement is not -4 -