[All] Fw: Beware of the views of the Media re: Waterloo Merger

Robert Milligan mill at continuum.org
Wed Feb 24 01:29:32 EST 2010


Great work Lulu.

Robert M.



On 24-Feb-10, at 12:43 AM, Louisette Lanteigne wrote:

> It's time to say it like it is.
>
> I sent this email to the ministries and the London Rep for the  
> Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who USES the KW Record as  
> a means of following up on local planning matters.  Please let me  
> stress this email is no reflection to the many wonderful reporters  
> that ARE out there doing good work. Bob you are one of the best.  
> There are good staff members out there but it is imperative that the  
> ministry at least go into reviewing local matters with a healthy  
> dose of reality.
>
> Lulu :0)
>
> --- On Wed, 2/24/10, Louisette Lanteigne  
> <butterflybluelu at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
> Subject: Beware of the views of the Media re: Waterloo Merger
> To: Tim.Ryall at mah.gov.on.ca, dduncan.mpp at liberal.ola.org, tabunsp-qp at ndp.on.ca 
> , norm.millerco at pc.ola.org, hhampton-qp at ndp.on.ca, ahorwath-co at ndp.on.ca 
> , bill.murdoch at ontla.ola.org, mprue-qp at ndp.on.ca, joyce.savoline at pc.ola.org 
> , jbradley.mpp at liberal.ola.org, jgerretsen.mpp at liberal.ola.org, jmilloy.mpp at liberal.ola.org 
> , spupatello.mpp at liberal.ola.org, gerry.martiniukco at pc.ola.org, lpendergast.mpp at liberal.ola.org 
> , elizabeth.witmerco at pc.ola.org, "Gord Miller"  
> <commissioner at eco.on.ca>, braidp1 at parl.gc.ca, flaherty.j at parl.gc.ca
> Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 12:34 AM
>
> Hello
>
> Please read the following in regards to the KW merger ballot  
> question and how this issue is being reflected in the media.
>
> First a bit of history on my experiences with Record Staff.
>
> As a resident of Waterloo who has survived an OMB process, I can  
> state first hand that the KW record printed false headlines and I  
> made them do retractions, They published slanderous comments and I  
> made them publish a letter to the editor which I wrote to undo the  
> accusations they made towards me that said I was against  
> development. (My sister works for a housing company in Trenton  
> Ontario and my uncle is a developer in New Brunswick. It's a silly  
> thing to imply)
>
> When I posted an ad for a fundraiser to help my OMB appeal, it was  
> published in the classifieds beside "Gigi the she-male" adjacent to  
> the Escort section. When I complained  I made them refund my money  
> ($350) and they republished my add and wrote an article about my  
> event.
>
> When I won my OMB concessions for PL071044, they never printed  
> ANYTHING to state what the concessions were. When a motion was made  
> to quash witnesses after the experts meeting resolved all the  
> issues, they published that I LOST the OMB.  I don't have to make  
> this up. Read the headline:  http://news.therecord.com/article/426730
>
> What the article failed to state is that the expert minutes arrived  
> to the OMB chair unratified by one single signature from developer's  
> experts. I was not even privy to the final copy until the hearing  
> began.  Ms. Rogers, the solicitor for the developer  spent the whole  
> time slandering me and I was not allowed to state what concessions  
> we won openly because the document was not fully ratified until the  
> day after the hearing. I knew we secured all concessions. I couldn't  
> say anything. That's why I simply wept. It was pure frustration.  
> That entire hearing was designed to spin things as if I lost the OMB  
> process.
>
> The "KW" Record are corporate sponsors of the Waterloo Regional Home  
> Builders Association. http://www.wrhba.com/  And the home builders  
> purchase ads for new housing to pay for the publication. It would  
> not be unreasonable to state the publication might have a bias when  
> it comes to planning matters and fair media coverage.
>
> Today in the February 23rd 2010 edition of the KW Record, the  
> headline covers the the topic regarding Monday night's city council  
> meeting. I scanned it for your reference since I could not find it  
> on the KW Record Website. There are a few topics of this nature that  
> do not show up in the on line publication.
>
> See the attachments and pay particular regard to the comments they  
> made in the last paragraph and then view the attachments for the  
> Minutes of the Meeting that I personally took and compare the two.
>
> This newspaper used 22 words to reflect the views of 11 of the 12  
> delegates who opposed the ballot question.  The one delegate who  
> supported the motion gave a very brief statement to council but he  
> received 53 words in the paper to reflect his view. Make of that  
> what you will. Is this fair and balanced reporting?
>
> The KW Record made the public look like idiots but the actual  
> minutes show a very smart,  politically aware public who opposes the  
> process because it does not reflect reasonable procedural logic.  
> This reality is not reflected in the KW Record article at all.
>
> I hope this information will be of assistance to you. If you have  
> any questions or comments about this kangaroo court process please  
> don't hesitate to contact me.
>
> Thank you kindly for your time.
>
> Louisette Lanteigne
> 700 Star Flower Ave.
> Waterloo Ontario
> N2V 2L2
> 519-885-7619
>
> < 
> feb22record 
> .jpg 
> > 
> < 
> Feb22WaterlooCityCouncilLanteigneMinutes 
> .doc>_______________________________________________
> All mailing list
> All at gren.ca
> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100224/fda2b53d/attachment.html>


More information about the All mailing list