QUOTE=concernedottawa;5880549]Open procurement is based on best value for the taxpayer.
More generalities that bely a misunderstanding of the complexities of the procurement process. Your statement would be more accurate if it said that procurement rules that provide multiple options to the procuring authority, including sole sourcing, are based on best value to the taxpayer.
The current sole source has a net loss of over $324M
(Yes, provided that you completely ignore the benefits of the plan - a new urban park, a new stadium with three anchor tenants and a funding mechanism for its upkeep, new public spaces and new residences and services for the neighbourhood. If investment in amenities was a "net loss", then pretty much the whole city budget falls into that category.) , privatizes a public site
(Yes, that is the talking point. I'd say that it opens a site that has been largely unusable by the public for 30 years and which has fallen into disrepair under city management, and creates a large new urban park that is in no way private.), promotes large chains over local business,
(Really? The plan I've seen promotes both local business and businesses that are new to Ottawa. That one was developed through a collaborative effort with the support of the Glebe BIA, which is made up of local businsess. Your plan was developed how, exactly?) has no transport plan
(this is one of many demonstrably false statements) , decreases public parking from the current 2,400 spots to 660 spots
(Which represents a vast improvement in the use of the land, and is certainly better than your plan of 1200 surface spots) and adds over 850,000 sq ft of density to a landlocked pocket
(Landlocked? Intensification can only take place on the waterfront? If so, does the canal count? Do you even read what you write?) and removes a popular soccer facility
(I think you mean "moves" a soccer facility to a brand new,centrally-located stadium being built by the university, right on a rapid transit line. Based on other statements that you've made, I would have thought you'd favour that.).
For certain narrow reasons some see that as good value.
(Forgive me for my narrow viewpoint. Not everyone can be an expert in public procurement, urban planning, commercial leasing, landscape architecture, stadium development, sports administration, public transportation and things being built across the street from your house.)
An open bid would however work for the benefit of the site and the public not narrow private interests.
(Not in this case. This is another claim without evidence. As pointed out, there is no viable alternative that would pass even the most basic criteria for financing and sports management experience. Ergo, an open bid would lead to exactly the same result as we have now. But it would cost a great deal of money to get to the same point (against the public interest), it would re-start a process that has taken 5 years to complete, and there is absolutely no question that it would prevent Ottawa from hosting CFL football or soccer any time soon, or the Women's World Cup at all, as construction timelines are already pushed to the limit (again, against the public interest.)
This is a moral question, do you allow open competition?
(Ah, morals. If the democratic and legal processes don't work for you, why not try to gain the moral high ground? Apparently by spamming every website you can find, for years on end, and telling them that this is a moral question, and they are morally wrong, I suppose.)
Particualry on an historic public site.
And a legal one.
(How many courts have to rule against you before you accept that your legal argument is not a good one? Forgive me if I question your legal acumen, but you seem to be a heavy user of the court system to settlle your disputes, and I see no evidence of you ever having won a single court case. Perhaps it's time to get some professional legal advice and listen to what you are hearing. If you had, you would have been told to stop posting public commentary about your case on every site in Ottawa. Which would have been good advice, as you may have noticed that your public statements played a role in having your first case dismissed.)
Taken from the City of Ottawa website (
www.ottawa.ca see Procurement By-Law 50 )
SHORT TITLE
1. This By-law may be cited as the "Purchasing By-law".
PURPOSE
2. (1) The objective of this By-law respecting procurement is to
obtain best value when purchasing goods, construction and services for the City while treating all suppliers equitably.
(2)
The guiding procurement principle is that purchases be made using a competitive process that is open, transparent and fair to all suppliers.
(3) These objectives and principles are reflected in this By-law.[/QUOTE]
Please stop posting the same general statements over and over. If your goal is to be immensely tiresome and irritating, then you have reached your goal. But I think you are well aware that your comments are not convincing anyone that you are right, and they divert from the positive discussion that is intended on this board. As was pointed out many times, you have a thread to discuss your personal views on this - please use it.
You lecture people on morals and then continuously break the rules of this site and the most basic social conventions by continuing this campaign of irritating anyone possible. We've been through this dance a hundred times. You are welcome to participate in the discussion of the plan that was approved and is being built as we speak, but if you can't do that, I'm asking you nicely to please show some maturity and stop posting these missives.
Prev
Linear Mode
