~ 2

In addition, I would hope that any “clear and proper explanation"
the City or its City Clerk might feel impelled to give would deal
in factual, objective, courteous terms, without Singling out one
particular citizen to be the focal point of public ridicule,
resentment, and misrepresentation.

-Mr. Freeman states that this proposed By-law No. 1726 is virtually
a re-write of By-law No. 919 passed on April 21.1969. As has
already been argued in City Council Chamber, January 21, 1980,
when our declaration of opposition was presented, an old law is
not necessarily a good law, whether passed ten years ago ina
one-week period or not. Does length of time on the books justify
Slavery laws, anti-feminist laws, and anti-union laws?

If you wish to "serve the City and its citizens well over a period
‘Of years," rather tnan passing three Amendment By-laws refining
the wording of an attached legal "Agreement" document, City Council
might state and clarify the rights of the property owner to refuse,
to negotiate, or to appeal such a proposal.

We do not dispute the "necessity" or validity of having a standard
legal document for two consenting, fully-infcrmed varties to sign,
provided that the By-law and presented Agreement make clear to the
property owner(s) concerned that he or she or’they are not compelled
to sign such an Agreement because of a City By-law authorizing .
"the acquisition by the City of statutory rights-of-way over reas
property" "for a sum not to e:seed One Dollar ($1.00) .

for each such statutory right-of-way."

Mr. Freeman states: "The second reason that supports the existence
of By-law No. 919 is a little deeper and requires Slightly more
than a. pinch of reflective contemplation,"

Is Mr. Freeman suggesting that the 43 residents and property owners
who earnestly signed the declaration of opposition to the present
wording of the proposed By-law No. 1726 might not be capable of
bringing “slightly more than a pinch of reflective contemplation"

to the consideration of this matter? If so, I think he does

Great disservice to the 43 people who seriously and at length
Considered, discussed, and researched this proposed Rights-of-Way By-law
as concerned: land owners and tax payers,

Mr. Freeman's statement “Any normal person quite rightly thinks..."
implies that I or any of the forty-three signees of the declaration
of opposition just might not be "any normal person." I think |

we residents and property owners have a right to resent such

public inference on the part of a publicly—paid "civil" servant.