City Signs Away Oversight to OPG - And Silences Anyone Who Questions It

Summary

Counselor Lisa Robinson exposes a concerning deal between the City of Pickering and OPG, where public control is handed over to a corporation, leaving residents at risk. Despite asking reasonable, critical questions at an executive meeting, she is shut down by the mayor, who dismisses her concerns as conspiracy theories. The agreement, she argues, limits liability to $10 million and fails to ensure safety or compensation for residents, while giving OPG unchecked power. Robinson calls for transparency, accountability, and leadership that prioritizes the people over political agendas.

Takeaways

• 😀 The city of Pickering is potentially handing over control of its public roads to a corporation, OPG, leaving residents to bear the cost.
• 😀 Councilor Lisa Robinson raised important questions about the agreement between the city and OPG during an executive meeting, which were dismissed and interrupted by the mayor.
• 😀 The mayor discouraged transparency, insisting that Robinson should take her questions to staff behind closed doors instead of asking them publicly.
• 😀 A major concern raised by Robinson is the inability of the city to terminate the agreement with OPG if it becomes financially or politically harmful.
• 😀 The agreement contains provisions that limit the city's oversight and restrict city staff from intervening on OPG’s work site, even in cases of safety risks.
• 😀 OPG can cancel the agreement at its discretion, while the city has no such option, showcasing a lopsided deal.
• 😀 The liability of OPG is capped at $10 million, and any damage exceeding that would fall on the taxpayers of Pickering.
• 😀 The construction of a sidewalk for pedestrian safety, which was promised, is conditional on feasibility, leaving residents uncertain about their safety.
• 😀 The city is delaying local infrastructure projects to accommodate OPG’s needs, which could result in increased costs for the city.
• 😀 Lisa Robinson calls out the mayor for controlling the narrative and attempting to silence her questions, highlighting issues of transparency, leadership, and accountability.

Q & A

What is the main concern raised by Counselor Lisa Robinson in the video?

Counselor Lisa Robinson expresses concern about a deal between the City of Pickering and OPG, which she believes hands over control of the city's roads to a corporation while leaving taxpayers responsible for any costs above a certain insurance cap. She is particularly worried about the lack of oversight and the one-sided nature of the agreement.

What specific issue does Lisa Robinson raise regarding the agreement between Pickering and OPG?

Lisa Robinson highlights that the agreement with OPG restricts the city's ability to intervene in roadwork and inspections, limits OPG's liability to $10 million, and does not hold the corporation accountable for damages exceeding that amount. Additionally, she points out that the agreement allows OPG to cancel at their convenience, while the city has no such right.

How does the mayor respond to Lisa Robinson's questions during the meeting?

The mayor dismisses Lisa Robinson's questions, calling them 'conspiracy theories' and argues that she is being argumentative. He also tells her she should have asked her questions privately before the meeting. When Robinson pushes for more time, he shuts down her inquiries, limiting her ability to speak.

What does Lisa Robinson accuse the mayor of doing during the meeting?

Lisa Robinson accuses the mayor of trying to silence her by mocking her, interrupting her, and preventing her from asking legitimate questions in public. She believes the mayor's behavior is an attempt to control the narrative and avoid scrutiny of the deal with OPG.

Why does Lisa Robinson believe the deal with OPG is 'one-sided'?

Lisa Robinson argues that the agreement is one-sided because it favors OPG with limited liability and control, while the city of Pickering assumes all the financial risks. She also points out that the city can't terminate the agreement if it becomes harmful, while OPG has the right to cancel it at their discretion.

What specific terms in the agreement does Lisa Robinson point out as problematic?

Lisa Robinson points out sections in the agreement that prohibit city staff from intervening in OPG's work, even if there are safety risks. She also highlights the $10 million insurance cap on OPG’s liability and the vague language about building a sidewalk, which OPG is only required to do 'if feasible.'

What potential risks does Lisa Robinson highlight concerning the $10 million insurance cap?

Lisa Robinson warns that if damage from OPG's activities, such as road wear and tear or infrastructure failures, exceeds the $10 million insurance cap, taxpayers in Pickering would be responsible for the additional costs. She considers this a major risk for the city and its residents.

How does Lisa Robinson characterize the relationship between the City of Pickering and OPG?

Lisa Robinson describes the relationship as a 'surrender,' not a partnership, since the deal benefits OPG without holding the corporation accountable for the long-term consequences. She believes the city is sacrificing its own infrastructure projects and allowing OPG to act with no deadlines or transparency.

What is Lisa Robinson's stance on transparency and public accountability?

Lisa Robinson emphasizes the importance of transparency and public accountability. She criticizes the mayor for pushing her questions behind closed doors, stating that transparency means asking questions in public, where the people can hear the answers, not in private briefings.

Why does Lisa Robinson accuse the mayor of using a smear campaign against her?

Lisa Robinson accuses the mayor of labeling her questions as conspiracy theories and using labels like 'dangerous,' 'racist,' and 'alt-right' to distract from the real issue at hand. She believes the mayor is trying to discredit her to avoid addressing the flaws in the agreement with OPG.