,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This Councillor unfairly negatively paints arch's with a broad brush, I question the approval proc that doesn't hold the dev accountable 1/
broad allegations against 95% of any prof'n not based in fact are libelous and damaging and not becoming of a respected politician 2/
#oaarchitects are accountable to the public for adherence to standards of conduct through #OAA complaints and discipline process 3/
if the Councillor or any person feel an architect has behaved unprofessionally, has the facts to prove it, they should file a complaint 4/
I think this is smokescreen for a Comm of Adj ruling that missed the boat, failed to cons the political context and the possible outcomes 5/
of a developer simply doing what they have a right to under the law and not limiting those options in its ruling. If you want dev to be 6/
accountable the Comm of Adj should have defined the terms and limitations of its approval with this in mind. Are we really surprised 7/
that the developer defaulted to the highest and best use of a property which the bylaws as amended or varied permit? I'm not. /8
Don't blame the architect when its not even clear that they had anything to do with the commitments made and the variance from them 9/
The Councillor's apology is not enough, it's half hearted at best! a retraction is required! @ArchitectsDCA /End
