News   Aug 02, 2024
Forma's Forest of Rebar Approaches Grade
 1.3K     0 
News   Aug 02, 2024
27-Storey Tower With Above-Grade Parking Proposed in Downtown Burlington
 3.2K     2 
News   Aug 02, 2024
Out of Office Space: How Developers are Responding to Changes in Work Habits
 1.3K     2 

Hazel McCallion on Hot Seat

ShonTron

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
12,475
Reaction score
9,290
Location
Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Slightly surprised no one posted about this yet, a minor scandal involving a land deal her son, Peter McCallion, was working on, where Hazel was allegedly exerted influence on:

Toronto Star:

Hazel McCallion 'should know better'

Councillors critical of mayor's involvement in meetings involving son's land deals
Sep 19, 2009 04:30 AM
Phinjo Gombu
Urban Affairs Reporter

Several Mississauga councillors, including one of Hazel McCallion's keenest supporters, were critical yesterday of revelations the veteran mayor had participated in meetings involving her son's land deal while it was before council.

McCallion declared a conflict of interest when the proposal for a hotel-convention centre near city hall being flogged by her realtor son Peter McCallion came before council in April 2008.

But court documents from a business dispute show she participated in at least two private meetings before and after that declaration...
Click to expand...
 
Interesting that they quote what the councillors say, but not what the mayor says.

Anyways, we all know Mississauga controlled by developers, and the fact that mayor's own son is in the development industry explains a lot. But the councillors are hypocrites to be criticizing her considering all the money they get from developers in the form of campaign contributions. They are all puppets of the development industry, the mayor, the councillors, all of them. So there is ALWAYS conflict of interest in Mississauga when it comes to development.
 
ShonTron said:
Slightly surprised no one posted about this yet, a minor scandal involving a land deal her son, Peter McCallion, was working on, where Hazel was allegedly exerted influence on:
Click to expand...
Attending meetings does not = exerting influence, as you infer.

Councillors in all cities have to work with planners and developers, sometimes offering opinion and other times working to get things done for the benefit of the city - who needs developers to make thing happen.

She admitted to being at meetings regarding the property (sometimes part of the job) and when it became a conflict, she declared it to council. How could it have been a conflict before a second buyer (Sheridan College) expressed interest? Once they did, she stepped back...
 
The conflict doesn't depend on how many parties are expressing interest; the conflict is in the fact that her son is involved. She declared the conflict in the formal council meetings, but I think she showed flawed judgement in being present at informal meetings.

The answer here is for Peter McCallion to keep his development activities strictly outside Mississauga. He doesn't appear to care that he is creating an uncomfortable situation for his mother.

Doady, not to be picky, but few people can remember the last time Hazel accepted a campaign contribution, from developers or anyone else, as she doesn't campaign. Now, one or two of the other councillors ...
 
Given Hazel's age, the thread title makes me think of bodily function problems and/or the antidotes thereof, etc...
 
To be completely honest, I don't care about the optics of this situation for Hazel or the conflict of interest itself. All I care about is that this Sheridan College campus happens and I'd willingly bend rules to get it done.
 
Observer Walt said:
Doady, not to be picky, but few people can remember the last time Hazel accepted a campaign contribution, from developers or anyone else, as she doesn't campaign. Now, one or two of the other councillors ...
Click to expand...

I never said that Hazel accepts campaign contribution, I said that the councillors accept campaign contributions. I was referring to the hypocrisy of the councillors. They criticize Hazel for her links to the development industry, but they have strong links to the industry as well. I could argue that the other councillors' attendence at any meeting for any development proposal could be considered conflict of interest too.
 
doady said:
I never said that Hazel accepts campaign contribution, I said that the councillors accept campaign contributions. I was referring to the hypocrisy of the councillors. They criticize Hazel for her links to the development industry, but they have strong links to the industry as well. I could argue that the other councillors' attendence at any meeting for any development proposal could be considered conflict of interest too.
Click to expand...
Bingo. They all attend such meetings - formally or not - since it goes with the job of being a councilor in a city that is seeing a lot of development. It's funny that Carolyn Parrish is one of the main complainants, she who would be mayor herself if Hazel was out of the way.

Just being in attendance when a relative - who is in the development business - does not meet anything untoward happened. Unless there is proof she pulled strings then there's no problem. It's when a second buyer came into the picture that she had to recuse herself, since the perception of a conflict could have begun - having to choose between the new buyer and her son's firm. If she pulled away from this decision then she's in the clear, which is what her legal advice sounds to have been.
 
Where is Mississauga Muse to further expose the evil undercurrents of the McCallion regime?
 
doady said:
I never said that Hazel accepts campaign contribution, I said that the councillors accept campaign contributions. I was referring to the hypocrisy of the councillors. They criticize Hazel for her links to the development industry, but they have strong links to the industry as well. I could argue that the other councillors' attendence at any meeting for any development proposal could be considered conflict of interest too.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with her links to the development industry. It's about the conflict of interest with her son. She herself said it was a conflict of interest, and then proceeded to get involved both before and after her declaration.

She really should've known better, especially considering she was found guilty of breaching conflict of interest rules in 1981 and her long career in politics.
 
Hazel McCallion reminds me of...

Everyone: Remembering the Mississauga Muse and seeing pics of Hazel McCallion posted She reminds me of Clara Peller-the lady behind the Wendy's
"Where's the Beef?" TV commercials of the 1980s.
Watch this example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0 She is the lady on the right,by the way...
Does anyone agree? LI MIKE
 
Hazel should know better.

Fact -- She was convicted of Municipal Conflict of Interest in the early 80s

She met with her son and his business partners to further his project. She also was a vocal supporter of one of the business partnerès other projects at the City. So much so that when they allegdedly duped her and had her sign a contract giving them too much power she was fine with it. She has yet to demand that they give back the powers they took?

But wait, it gets worse, we do not know the details of the secret settlement that her son got when OMERS settled with him to pave the way for the City to buy the land. Wait, who suggested buying this land? Wait, would the settlement have ever happened if the City did not step in to buy the land? Who set the value for the land? Who got what money? How many meetings did the Mayor not declare a conflict -- if your answer was a couple then you have been fooled but those who do not want you too look closer.

Is this a big scandal? It depends on how many millions of dollars need to be in play for you to get interested.
 
Thathurts said:
Hazel should know better.

Fact -- She was convicted of Municipal Conflict of Interest in the early 80s

She met with her son and his business partners to further his project. She also was a vocal supporter of one of the business partnerès other projects at the City. So much so that when they allegdedly duped her and had her sign a contract giving them too much power she was fine with it. She has yet to demand that they give back the powers they took?

But wait, it gets worse, we do not know the details of the secret settlement that her son got when OMERS settled with him to pave the way for the City to buy the land. Wait, who suggested buying this land? Wait, would the settlement have ever happened if the City did not step in to buy the land? Who set the value for the land? Who got what money? How many meetings did the Mayor not declare a conflict -- if your answer was a couple then you have been fooled but those who do not want you too look closer.

Is this a big scandal? It depends on how many millions of dollars need to be in play for you to get interested.
Click to expand...

You're making a lot of assertions here - and should be able to provide some sort of substance to back them up. Can you?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top