top of page
  • Writer's picturemmavridis

New Year, New twists

Happy New Year to all!

Just when the inbox was quiet, a letter from the Integrity Commissioner appears.

For some background;

I ran for council to be a voice for all small businesses and help balance tourism with residents.

With 30+ years of business in town, surviving and pivoting through 9/11, economic crash, SARS and most recently COVID. I have knowledge and help to offer.

I have a love of what this town has given to me over the years to give back.

I did not expect to be reported to the Integrity Commissioner.

I understand that IF anything comes before council with an application on anything I personally or my father owns that I would have to declare pecuniary interest. I also understand that if anything within a few meters of my residential home comes before council I have to declare.

What I do not believe is that ANY restaurant that comes before council is a pecuniary interest.

That anything that comes before council regarding Queen st is a pecuniary interest or anything related to a program for licensed establishments is a pecuniary interest.

This is a stretch. In my eyes ridiculous.

To the best of my knowledge I do not have conflict on the temporary patio program.

Yes, my father owns a restaurant with a “patio”.

I use the quotes because the space at Corks is actually considered indoor space. We pay property taxes on it and is permanent with both air conditioning, heat, flooring, and a roof. Is it marketed as a year round “patio”? Of course, because our marketing team is genius.

However, another restaurant owner who has a temporary patio disagrees and has decided to report it to the IC.

Is it because they watched the meeting where i commented that the temporary program is done and IF it is to continue should require that the businesses pay for the lost parking revenue if they are using a parking space?

Or is it because I commented that capacity of outdoor space shouldn’t exceed their indoor capacity to remain fair to non licensed establishments that pay high rents on the street but cannot increase their space outside?

Or is it because I am concerned for the street scape of Queen st and it losing it charm if not done properly?

Or is it because I raise valid points and want fairness for both businesses and residents and ensure it isn’t favouring one side more than the other?

I don’t know what it is, although there apparently is also another inquiry if I should be claiming a conflict on anything that comes before us in the entire Heritage District as well.

Making it difficult for anyone that isn’t retired, involved in the community, has a young family run for council.

Total transparency, I will claim a conflict until the “investigation” is completed. For those that voted and supported me gaining a seat at the table,

Thank you and please know I am not bowing out of decision making by choice.

337 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page