This complaint raises two issues.
The first centers around the site selection process as reported in a recent Eastside Committee report which emphasizes “single-family homes”. The complainant suggests that the process gives rise to issues of bias and unfair treatment of some residential property owners. The specific issue is whether the site selection process is unfair and betrays a lack of impartiality in excluding multi-family dwellings as part of the selection process (presumably favouring the exclusion of options for siting a waste water treatment facility near single-family homes).
The complaint also raises several procedural concerns with the Eastside consultation process, which the complainant suggests, is inadequate.
Specific issues raised in complaint:
The complainant suggests that several processes (and bodies) appear to be relying on the “single-family home” criterion in the site selection process. In particular, the Eastside Committee’s recent release of options includes considerations related to “single-family homes”. In addition, the complainant points to Ms. Coady’s (Chair of the TOP) recent remarks at a public meeting. When asked “what factors were considered when ranking the sites, and how were they weighted”, Ms. Coady is reported to have suggested that the most significant factor in the ranking of potential sites was social considerations.
At issue is whether this criteria of “single-family dwellings” was part of the formal criteria provided to the various teams involved in site selection processes, and if not, how this criteria has emerged.
As it relates to the Eastside consultation process, the complaint points to the following procedural concerns:
- lack of reaching out to property owners other than through large group sessions;
- lack of appropriate notice of public sessions;
- singular use of computer based surveys;
- inadequate access to technical experts to answer public questions;
- incomplete information provided to the public.