Dear Editor,

[Re: City council approves $15-M loan proposal, 91原创 Advance Times, Aug. 3]

I fail to see how 91原创 City Mayor Nathan Pachal can claim that the alternative approval process was transparent.

Transparency would mean that before the alternative approval process started, and the loan approval bylaw was proposed, 91原创 citizens would have been told there would be no vote. Instead, electors were duped into thinking they actually had a choice whether they wished to approve a $15 million dollar loan.

After the City spent money on advertising and allowed the duped electors the opportunity to waste the time, expense, and effort it took to defend the right to vote, and oppose the bylaw, Mayor Pachal declared that there鈥檚 鈥渘o statutory requirement to do that.鈥� (Seek approval for the loan ).

If the bylaw had been successfully opposed, he could have said the same thing.

It鈥檚 all transparent now. Taxes will increase. Investors will make money, while more voters will struggle to stay in their homes.

There will be no vote.

His worship also spoke of being accountable. How is that even possible when City administrator Francis Cheung 鈥渃an鈥檛 disclose鈥� which properties the City is looking at to Councillor Mike Solyom? Francis is an unelected official, and consequently can鈥檛 be held accountable at the next civic election.

I submit there is no transparency and no accountability to the citizens in this whole absurd affair.

One fine day there will be another civic election. I would like to vote for honest, straightforward candidates who respect the traditions of democracy, you know, like letting people vote.

Richard Penner, 91原创 City

.

鈥� READ MORE: LETTER: Alternate approval process 鈥� first 91原创 City, now 91原创 Township

.