The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

If the city thought its case against MFP and the insurance companies (and they were really fairly innocent parties in all this) was weak, 1 suppose it‘s better to cut your lossâ€" es and run. So in that case, if we couldn‘t win in court, it was a good step for council to agree to the setâ€" tlement, even if the taxâ€" Then, on Feb. 11, our mayor informed us that the city had reached a tenâ€" tative agreement to settle the lawsuit and â€" that thanks to this settlement, the taxpayers would save $82 million. Save? The project was supposed to cost $112.9 million. That‘s what city staff and city council were led to believe. Now it‘s going to cost $145.7 million. Some savings! And we are supâ€" posed to be thankful that it‘s not costing $227.7 milâ€" lion. I thought the only thing that affects a lawsuit is the facts that are presented in court. You win or lose, based on the evidence presented in the courtâ€" room. It‘s that simple. The Record reported that day that Waterloo Mayor Lynne Woolstenâ€" croft had said she would prefer not to have a public inquiry over the RIM Park financing as it would affect the city‘s lawsuit against MFP _ Financial Services and two insurâ€" ance companies who had purchased the city‘s debt. ome days I think I live Sin Neverâ€"Never land. Feb. 8 was one of those days. Some days I feel like I‘m living in Neverâ€"Never Land QUESTION WHAT DO YOU THINK OF WATERLOO‘S OUTâ€"OFâ€"COURT SETTLEMENT WITH MFP? You said it It is now up to council to take a deep breath and take a look at how this fiasco came about. It‘s also a time to tell the public everything... who messed up and why, what steps are being taken to ensure it doesn‘t happen again, how much the city has spent in legal fees, how much was spent on a mediator... . everything. Nothing less will do. Mayor Woolstencroft has said we do not need a judicial _ inquiry _ held payers are still on the hook for an extra $33 million over the 30â€"year life of the deal. It is now up to council to take a deep breath and take a look at how this fiasco came about. "I don‘t think the park‘s worth it. We could have done something better with the money." "I would say that heads should roll." Mike Lisinski COMMENT Bob Nesbitt What we do no need is a shame inquiry, with city hall staffers questioning other city hall staffers and passing the buck as some type of public meeting. That is why we need an independent inquiry headed by someone from outside city hall, someone with common sense and a good legal mind, who can cut through the verbiage, obfuscation, smoke and mirrors an come up with genuine answers. 1 would suggest there are probably several retired Superior Court judges around â€" people with expertise and credibility â€" who could be hired at reasonable fees to head such an inquiry. We do need an inquiry, however, _ to _ provide answers and clear the air. The mayor disagrees, says an inquiry isn‘t needed, that the public will be kept informed, and that she will publicly address the role played by senior staff and certain councillors in the financing fiasco. This is exactly what I‘m afraid of. As a past councillor, I take great offense that the mayor is even hinting that some councillors were involved in any of the financing agreements. under the Public Inquiry Act., such as the City of Toronto is now undertakâ€" ing to sort out its own problems involving MFP 1 quite agree with her. Toronto is looking for eviâ€" dence of crimes or wrongâ€" doing on the part of forâ€" mer or current city staff or politicians. This is not what we need. What‘s sad is the way it has all ended. Let‘s hope we discover our mistakes and learn from them. Anyway, the good thing is that we have a wonderâ€" ful facility with RIM Park, and if you‘ve never seen it, I recommend you make a visit. And don‘t forget the city‘s _ investment _ in Waterloo North Hydro. This investment will pay dividends that can be used to pay for RIM just as profits from Kitchener‘s gas utility are used to pay for the Centre in the Neither is it necessarily inevitable. Waterloo is growing... every house built, _ every â€" business opened, every industry that locates in the city adds to the tax revenue, usually without increasing expenses by a similar amount. City growth, it seems to me, will go along way towards paying our extra $1.3 million annual RIM Park payments. Meanwhile, while nobody can be happy with the prospects of paying an extra $33 million for RIM Park â€" almost 30 per cent more than budgeted â€" it‘s not time for taxpayâ€" ers to panic. In a worstâ€" case scenario, taxes would have to increase by 4.4 per cent to cover the cost. As the mayor said, "$25 on a $600 (city portion) tax bill is not huge." And what we certainly don‘t need is for nothing to be done. Something happened here. We need to know what. WXOEIH "It‘s a little bit better than the original deal, but not much better." "I think it stinks. They should have gotten someone who knows something aboutâ€" financing." Claude Holdenmeyer Fidon Leis This brings me to something that is even more maddening that Flaherty‘s idea to jail the homeless: the phoney shock of his fellow candidates for premier. Elizabeth Witmer‘s crocodile tears were typical of the responses: "I find his plan absolutely disgusting. It is inhumane and is totally lacking in compassion. He has no appreciation of the root causes of homelessness." To quote Coyle again, "Root causes of homelessness? Talk about your Damascene conversions Where was Witmer‘s voice, exploring and explaining the root causes of homelessness, durâ€" ing the last seven years when she was a senior Ontario cabinet minister? How does she explain her silence â€" inhumane and totally lacking in compassion, some might say â€" as this nationâ€" al disgrace exploded and the streets filled with dispirited souls? What is she implying now? That she was only following orders?" The biggest problem with Flaherty‘s proposal is that it ignores his own government‘s role in causing homelessness to increase to crisis proportions. Cutting welfare rates, freezing the minimum wage, cancelling social housing, eliminating rent control, and making evictions easier are just some of the Tory policies that contribute to homelessness. In fact, as Toronto Star columnist Jim Coyle notes, "this is a government that could hardly have concocted a better recipe for homelessness." Neither Flaherty nor any of his leadership opponents are proposing to change anything in this recipe. Other critics are pointing to the impracticality of jailing every homeless person in the province, something that would cost around $140 a day per person. That‘s a lot of money for a government led by Flaherty or anyone else. Keep in mind that he‘s already promised not to touch funding for health care, eduâ€" cation, the environment or "vulnerable people". Keep in mind as well that Flaherty wants to cut taxes even more â€" and that the Tories have also made deficits illegal (although no jail time is proposed under that legislation). Toronto lawyer Suzan Fraser adds, "there is a shortage of safe beds and a shortage of shelter beds. The shelters are full... I think this is ludicrous. It‘s like punishing orphans for not havâ€" ing parents." Flaherty is dismissing criticism that such legislation would run afoul of the hu * Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but ANOT ‘ leaked cabinet documents show that \/rIE he said the opposite in November 2000 {when he was attorney general}. At J that time, he rejected a committee‘s e proposal for "new legislation making it | * an offence for persons to have no |R® @ «uy address and authorizing police to | \P) apprehend and involuntarily detain [ ul homeless persons", saying that it would flunk a constitutional challenge. A memo notes that "even a benevolent argument that the state has an interest SCOT in protecting the homeless from possiâ€" PIATKO! ble harm or death runs a substantial risk of being outweighed by the liberty and security of the personal interests of the individual Another huge problem with Flaherty‘s proposal is that homeless people will simply hide from police rather than face arrest. If they are hiding from police, they can‘t be found by peoâ€" ple trying to bring them food, clothing or medical attention. People will be more likely to die. Having observed this trend, I have to say that even I was surâ€" prised by Flaherty‘s latest proposal â€" making homelessness a crime. "It will be illegal to live in public places, on the streets and in the parks. Living on the streets is not an option. Call it tough love," says Flaherty, who promises to "virtually eliminate homelessness... (by) offering alternatives to the homeless." If those "alternatives" were not taken, a homeless person would be taken to jail â€" but only "as a last resort". Flaherty describes his proposal as an example of the "true compassion" that we can expect to see if he becomes premier. So, how would this plan to move Ontario boldly into the 19th century work? Let‘s ask Mr. Scrooge... er Flaherty. "You define what is sleeping, you define what an overnight use is, and then you make it illegal... Beginning in an urban area with a serious homeless problem, we will allow for the hiring and training of special constables who would be given powers to identify and provide alternatives to the homeless living on the street... We need to go a step further (than providing blankets) and really try to solve this problem." im Flaherty has decided that the best way to become premier Io{ Ontario is to stake out turf on the far right of the political spectrum. The idea is to appeal to the diminishing group of people who still think that the Common Sense Revolution was a good idea. Unfortunately for Flaherty, the shared ideology of everyone else in the Tory leadership race is already so far to the right that he is a risk of falling right of the edge of that spectrum. Let‘s jail the people who cause homelessness ANOTHER VIEW | j [y :] â€" "x SCOTT f PIATKOWSKI |