Comment 17753

By jason (registered) | Posted January 28, 2008 at 15:58:18

The real problem here is actually the OMB. It's purpose is noble enough - to give people another decision-making body to appeal decisions by cities that are contrary to good planning or already established policies. Sadly, the OMB has become a haven for this type of thing. Groups (who can easily afford never-ending litigation) taking a city for a hearing in order to have a very clear and well-thought out planning process overturned. If the OMB had any character or integrity it would never have allowed itself to become used for such endeavors. They should tell groups like Trinity to take a hike. The OMB does not exist to run cities. It exists to help uphold planning policies in place. If that were truly the case, Trinity would never bother taking this to the OMB since the city's planning and positions are (for once) very sound and very clear. Trinty knows full-well that the OMB does NOT operate according to their original mandate and they in fact do have a shot at winning this case due to past history of insane OMB decisions.

As for the actual process, I have no clue if the OMB members are paid off or 'favoured' etc...but their operating guidelines are sketchy at best.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds