Anonymous Wrote...

Set aside all the financial arguments for a minute and consider this.

We have seven councilors. We have eight thousand names on a petition. That represents a sizable portion of the total number of people who voted in the last election.These seven councilors supposedly represent the eight thousand people who signed the petition.

Why is there a controversy? This should be a slam-dunk. Any councilor who is considering voting for the golf course is considering betraying the people of this community. WHY would any councilor do that??? What is the motivation??

This should be the simplest decision they have to make in their entire four year term of office. The community has made it abundantly clear what is required of council. All council has to do is follow the instructions provided by the citizens. Any councilor that won't vote for us had better not be delusional enough to think that we would vote for them again in the next election. Why is there a controversy??

This golf course should have been voted down unanimously a long time ago. Just what the hell is going on here?

Regarding the Sally Creek Fiasco

There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not council should make a decision on the future of the park areas particularly the Standard Tube/Burgess Trail Park. The council can wash their hands of this mess by voting NO so we can carry on with our lives in this community and so they can carry on governing Woodstock.

Stopping this matter of leasing the land for use of a golf course should be their primary interest. It is obvious that the community is concerned and the community is being harmed by this irrational idea of developing our green spaces in a time of heightened environmental awareness. I know that no one who has stood up to save this space is against development or golfing. Citizens are rightly concerned by what has already been done to a once beautiful area that was enjoyed by all ages and what Sally Creek developers want to do to the remaining area back there that approximately 6000 members of the public have said must be retained for public use.

Can anyone tell me what the benefit of all this fighting against the will of the public has been to anyone in Woodstock? Is the council more concerned with the cares of a developer than the residents who elected them and the needs they represent? To care for a corporation and its profitability more than the human race is a difficult thing to fathom.Let's not waste our tax dollar on this any longer, Woodstock's time and resources would be better spent achieving good things instead of dividing the community into factions of us and them. A three-season study is not important if a decision on this golf course is an affirmative NO.


All of the arguments for or against the proposed development all pale in comparison to the one missing argument that in the past, the city of Woodstock has entered into private business relationships, such as with the notorious Info Energy debacle, and has appointed elected officials to those private corporate boards who refuse to be accountable to us, without any measure of transparency to the citizens of Woodstock, and now we are being asked to subject ourselves to one more round of similar stupidity. This is a curious use of their time in office and a sad demand to place on the people of Woodstock.
The course operator has offered a neglible amount of money for our conservation area. If anything, the land should be going to the highest bidder, not the lowest.
They have offered the city of Woodstock(Us) a small portion of the fees dereived from each round of golf played. How will we determine how many rounds are played? And who will provide oversight to ensure we actually get paid?
Are we to believe that this privately incorporated business(the proposed golf course) intends on opening its financial records to us, the residents of the City of Woodstock? Not likely. Look what happened with Info Energy...how much accountability was there with that? Will there be another financial scandal from this association? Voting yes to this destructive development could possibly lead to financial liabilities in the future. And because of that a resounding NO is what is required.

No is the only real option that council has in their elected capacity. Due diligence and democratic process demand it. .Voting yes to this golf course expansion onto public owned lands through a leasing arrangement with the city by which the developer pays the city $1.00 per round of golf is ridiculous, frivolous and reeks of madness. No is the only Option and the public has made this very clear.

Council has the opportunity and the responsibility to stand up for future generations of Woodstonians and protect this conservation land from developers now and in the future. Any decision against maintaining the lands as they are will be perceived by the future generations as being at best naive if not morally bankrupt.

Keep the Woods in Woodstock