Archive photo
Comox must apologize for breaches of Mack Laing Trust
Thanks to four brave new councillors, there is an opportunity to draw to a close the Town of Comox’s long history of breaching the trust of Hamilton Mack Laing and misappropriating the funds the famous naturalist left in his Last Will for the community that he loved.
Comox Town Council voted against Mayor Russ Arnott this week and set aside court proceedings to modify Mack Laing’s trust “for up to three months so that council may have discussions with all interested parties.”
Arnott cast the lone vote against the motion, contradicting statements he made during the fall municipal election campaign promising to settle this matter out of court. But new councillors Alex Bissinger, Patrick McKenna, Nicole Minions and Stephanie McGowan all spoke in favor of giving out of court discussions a chance.
Once it was clear the vote for negotiation would win, councillors Ken Grant and Maureen Swift got on board, despite voting for the court action during their previous terms.
That left Arnott alone in wanting to proceed toward an expensive court trial.
The Mack Laing Heritage Society has garnered broad community support for restoring Shakesides as a unifying and heritage-based town project. Some of those supporters believe the town will lose in court, at a minimum being ordered to submit to a forensic audit of the financial matters and forced into mediation.
The vote also put Arnott at odds with the new majority of councillors, who had campaigned for a negotiated settlement out of court.
But the question facing council is how to stop bleeding money on legal expenses — estimated by one observer to have neared or topped $100,000 — with a plan that satisfies the Laing society and is financially sustainable.
Finding that way forward won’t be easy, and yet that’s the task to accomplish in the next 90 days.
But nothing good will happen if council appoints another flawed advisory committee like former mayor Paul Ives did several years ago. That group failed to follow its own terms of reference. The outcome was so incomplete that two members of the committee wrote opposing minority reports.
And that’s why Arnott’s lone vote against at least trying to negotiate a win-win resolution is disappointing. The mayor is obviously entrenched in his position. He has now stated so for the record.
How is that going to help facilitate any open-minded and meaningful conversations over the next three months? At least returning councillors Grant and Swift had the decency to support an opportunity for positive discussions.
Here’s the problem.
Laing left money and his property to the town in a trust that specified the gifts be used to create a publicly accessible natural history museum at his home, called Shakesides.
If the CVLT had existed in 1982, they would have had legal power via a covenant to compel the Town of Comox to keep up its end of the bargain. Mack Laing deserves the same respect as Father Charles Brandt
But now, 37 years after Laing’s death in February of 1982, the town has done nothing to fulfill Laing’s wishes, even though they accepted the terms of the trust when they took his money and property. Over a year ago, the town admitted that it spent Laing’s money inappropriately for years, but only because the Mack Laing Heritage Society had amassed a mountain of evidence detailing the town’s mishandling.
Undaunted, the previous Town Council applied to the BC Supreme Court to tear down Shakesides and spend Laing’s money elsewhere. But the outcome of court actions are always uncertain. And, based on the comments of two Justices so far, the court believes the Laing society has an important case to make.
To prevent further dividing the community, the town needs to make a formal and public apology of its historic wrongdoings. Why? Answer: Because this is a moral issue.
If the town had no intention of abiding the terms of Laing’s trust, it should never have accepted the money and property. But once it did, the town had a moral obligation to follow through. And if the town can behave fast and loose with Laing’s money, what reasonable person would leave the town any gift in the future?
Comox has, so far, proven itself untrustworthy.
The Comox Valley Land Trust, and other similar conservancy organizations, were created to address this exact problem. And the CVLT is currently creating security for the wishes of Father Charles Brandt, who plans to leave his house and property on the Oyster River for a regional district public park.
If the CVLT had existed in 1982, they would have had legal power via a covenant to compel the Town of Comox to keep up its end of the bargain. Mack Laing deserves the same respect as Father Charles.
Can you imagine if the Comox Valley Regional District someday tries to alter the terms of the Father Charles covenant? The public outcry would be overwhelming. There should be no less of a voice in protest against the Town of Comox, if it follows Mayor Arnott’s example and pushes this case through the courts.
Everyone in the Comox Valley who values heritage, and honorable actions by locally-elected governments, should support a negotiated settlement.
That doesn’t mean the solution is simple. But it is possible if everyone comes to the table with an open mind and good intentions.
Mayor Arnott was asked for comment for this opinion article at 3:45 pm PST, but had not responded by 8:35 PST when it was posted.
WHO WAS HAMILTON MACK LAING?
Hamilton Mack Laing was an important Canadian naturalist, photographer and writer. He moved to Comox in 1922, cleared his land and built his home from a “Stanhope” Aladdin Ready-Cut kit. In 1927, he married Ethel Hart of Portland and they established a successful and commercial orchard which included walnut, pecan, filbert, hazelnut, apple and plum trees. They also grew mushrooms and vegetables. After his wife, Ethel, died in 1944, he sold his original home, Baybrook, and built a new home, Shakesides, on the adjoining lot. He bequeathed the waterfront property to the Town of Comox and it became Mack Laing Nature Park
— excerpted from content on the Mack Laing Heritage Society‘s website
Click here for more on Hamilton Mack Laing and the issues with the Town or Comox
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
On Merville groundwater extraction it’s deja vu all over again
Regional district staff recommend approving an amended application for groundwater extraction in Merville as a “home occupation,” but rural area directors want more clarity on its legal definition
Merville water bottling issue returns to the CVRD, highlights provincial water policies
The Comox Valley Electoral Areas Service Commission will consider on Monday an amended application for water bottling operations in Merville and draw attention to larger water policy issues in British Columbia
The Meaning of Life: Five notable Vancouver Islanders reflect on their life’s journey
Decafnation starts a new tradition this year by asking selected Comox Valley people to share their acquired knowledge that didn’t come from book-learning or academic studies. We begin today with the collective wisdom of five notable Vancouver Islanders rooted in the Comox Valley.
The Week: Give us full transparency when paid ‘volunteers’ work with CV students
Faith-based volunteers can contribute positively to the educational experience in our public schools but everyone must be perfectly clear about who they are, what they can and cannot do and school administrators must monitor their activity closely and consistently
What’s dire: the lack of Comox subdivisions or climate change and gradual deforestation?
A Comox Valley developer is suing the Town of Comox because his permits to cut down trees and build more single-family homes haven’t been issued as fast as he’s wanted and because the town wants a wider walking trail through the property
Questions raised about prayer in schools, SD71 puts hold on faith-based volunteers
Comox Valley schools have put a hold on all faith-based community volunteer activities pending a review to determine if Youth For Christ workers have been violating SD71 policies and provincial laws
The Week: Ken Grant fined by Elections BC and Parksville confronted by development, water issues
Another Comox Councillor was fined by Elections BC for violating BC elections laws, plus Parksville’s water supply is unable to meet provincial requirements for summer water flow in the Englishman River let alone provide water for a proposed 800-unit development
THE WEEK: As Puntledge River goes lower, Colorado drinking recycled wastewater
A serious fall drought has reduced flows in the Puntledge River, shutting down hydroelectric power generation for the first time in 55 years. Meanwhile, many states eye sending treated wastewater to kitchen taps
THE WEEK: Let the people have a larger voice at Comox Valley council meetings
Making it easier for citizens to speak directly to municipal councils might increase public interest in local government, which in turn might encourage more registered voters to actually cast a ballot
Courtenay Council announces its regional district line-up and other appointments
Courtenay City Council’s annual appointments announced after a short delay
I am sickened by the decisions made by the Town of Comox. They are tearing out the heart and soul of our community by allowing every historic structure, in town, to be torn down. They say the new structure they have planned should bring to mind the original house. How in any way does the new structure do this? How much was this structural engineer paid? Sorry, but a Gr. 6 class could come up with something better. It is atrocious. I would rather there be nothing there if this is what is planned and I am sure Mack Laing would agree. If you look at the success of many towns it is linked to their history but not our town lined with apartment buildings and struggling businesses. I thought we had a new Mayor and Council with refreshing, youthful, progressive ideas but the old school, unimaginative views have prevailed.
Angela Burns –
In response to your comment made on Feb 8, 2019 at 11:56am “The Town did NOT save the Filberg – the Vancouver Foundation did. If they had not, that park would now be condos”.
My understanding, from reading the 2009 publication on the Filberg Heritage Lodge & Park by Paula Wild (partially funded by the Government of Canada through the Dept of Canadian Heritage under the Building Communities through Arts and Heritage Program) is that Mr Filberg gave his property and more than $10 million to the Vancouver Foundation to establish the R J Filberg Estate General Fund and the Robert and Florence Filberg Fund. His wish was that the revenue from these funds would benefit B.C. non-profit organizations, especially in the Comox Valley. He assumed that his lodge and property would be sold and proceeds added to the already established funds.
It was through a motion made by Comox Alderman, Alice Bullen, in August 1977, the same year that Mr Filberg passed away, that a letter be sent to Peter Kaye, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Vancouver Foundation, inquiring into the possibility of the Filberg home property becoming a public park. With the support and leadership of Mayor Merrick and Mayor Piercy, a favorable agreement was reached. Yes, the Annual Grants to the Town of Comox did come from the Vancouver Foundation : $20k per year for 20 years to purchase the Lodge and 2.5 acres, and an additional $20k a year to be applied towards restoration of the property. The remaining 6.5 acres still belonged to the Vancouver Foundation and were leased for $1/yr for 10 years to the Town. In 1989 Mayor Piercy negotiated the acquisition of these 6.5 acres, without tax dollars, to become the property of the Town.
Thanks for the response George. I have a couple of comments.
First, my sense of this is that the decision of the last council to demolish the house and build a viewing platform was a compromise reached after a process involving all parties. The court application was necessary to carry out the compromise. The town would have gone to court reluctantly. The reality of most compromises is that often none of the parties are completely happy. For many who would like to keep the park in a natural state, as Mack Laing requested when he first gave the house and property to the town in 1973, the way to honour Mack’s gift and deal with the many problems of a museum on the site, the viewing platform was a less that ideal compromise. However, they were prepared to live with that compromise.
M.L.H.S. obviously did not want to live with that compromise and responded by going to court to try to prevent the compromise from being carried out. This has continued to drive up legal expenses. The original application by the town and supported by the A.G. was to be completed by consent, with the ultimate approval required by the court. This is always the least expensive legal option where a court application is required.
I suspect that this is what frustrates some of the council members from the last council. It is like Groundhog Day. They have seen this movie before.
I also disagree that the only issue is the moral issue. The town owned the property and the house for many years before Mack died and left the cash gift. In retrospect, it was likely a mistake to accept the cash gift with the conditions that were attached. The reason the law allows people to apply to vary trusts is to correct these sorts of mistakes. Further, for many people the issues of the damage to the park necessitated by development, environmental and costs concerns are also critical. For an interest based compromise to be reached the concerns of all parties, the moral issues you identify, but also the environmental and other concerns, need to be addressed.
Hi Gordon — I think there is strong disagreement that the advisory committee outcome was a compromise or that it addressed its terms of reference. But, putting that disagreement aside, there are other issues with the committee, the primary one, in my mind, is that they did not have access to all of the information at the time of their deliberations. They were told the trust fund amounted to about $70,000. Since then the town has admitted to spending some of the funds inappropriately and today the fund totals around $260,000. There’s still dispute about that, and it wouldn’t hurt to have a forensic audit to clarify that point. But that’s a significant difference in money, and it is conceivable an open-minded committee knowing the current amount of trust funds would reach a different conclusion. So this is not groundhog day, the facts have changed from then to now, and should be revisited. That’s my point.
But, Gordon, the moral issue is the crux of the matter, in my view. It wasn’t “likely a mistake to accept the cash gift with the conditions … attached.” It was a mistake, it was bad faith, if the town had no intention of following through. In certain circumstances, an individual executor of an estate doing what the town did could face criminal charges. All good faith negotiations and compromises will stem from the town’s acknowledgement of wrongdoing going back to 1982.
We are lucky to have the Comox Valley Land Trust today to ensure that the Comox Valley Regional District lives up to the terms of Father Charles Brandt’s gift to the public forever more. The CVRD will not be able to ignore his wishes for 37 years and then decide, because as a result of their own neglect, they want to alter those wishes. The CVLT covenant will enforce them. There was no such available watchdog on the Town of Comox. But that shouldn’t mean the town is less accountable.
For the record, I’m not a hard-liner on either side of this issue, though some people want to paint me there. I stand for justice and for public bodies doing the honorable thing, the ethically right thing. The answers to all the technical questions about financial sustainability, parking or any of those issues will flow from the town accepting its culpability in where we are today. I’m sorry, I can’t get past this point in good conscience.
George – as per the above quotes from the Advisory Committee report and comments from the chairperson, the decision not to restore the building was not based on available funds, so whether the trust fund is $70,000 or $260,000 is not particularly relevant. In any case, the will stipulates that only 25% of the available funds could be used for restoration, so based on the $260,000 figure this would amount to $65,000. We have spoken with City of Campbell River officials regarding the restoration of the Sybil Andrews Cottage and they estimated the restoration costs to be in excess of $400,000, and this likely does not include countless hours spent by town officials and staff planning and supervising the project. The SA Cottage was in better condition to start with than Shakesides and is on an easily accessible location on a city street, not down a steep, decaying roadway in a remote location as is Shakesides. Regardless of all the sources of volunteer labor the MLHS claims they have, $65,000 is not going to restore a building that has major foundation issues, likely needs asbestos remediation (as did Baybrook), an archeological study (since it resides on the midden) and other problems that could easily drive up the cost of restoration to astronomical levels. The budget for the new stage in Filberg Park was $20,000 and the costs quickly ballooned to over $80,000, and that included volunteer labor from the base.
Regarding the moral issue, I could have more sympathy with that argument if it wasn’t for some of the shockingly offensive public statements made by the MLHS about Town officials and residents who oppose their agenda. Some of these have been posted above – some of them are not printable. One of my (non) favorites, is a statement by an MLHS executive member that those who signed the petition opposing their plans to develop Baybrook House into a B&B, mini conference center, and preschool should be forced to “sit or re-sit a citizenship exam”. The petition was signed by a number of veteran residents who put their lives on the line for this country – I leave you to ponder the “morality” behind making such a statement.
On the same issue of morality, the MLHS has a long history of making public statements that are factually incorrect. This continues to the present – a former member of the MLHS executive recently stated on the My Comox Valley Now Facebook page that the Town recently received a letter from Heritage B.C. stating that they would “pay 100% of the cost of restoring both houses” (I assume she meant Shakesides and Baybrook). I have spoken with Town officials and they have received no such letter. However, the damage is done in the minds of the public. Then we have Maingon’s recent letter to the Record which was full of false information and was thoroughly debunked in a follow-up rebuttal by a former Town official. Another of my favorites was a letter from an MLHS executive member to the Record claiming that the owner of the Canadian Tire store wished to build a Canadian Tire store in Baybrook Park, or another claiming that the previous owner of the Baybrook Property intended to build a multi-unit condominium complex on the property (in a floodplain…). Both of these were patently false and frankly, absurd.
In summary, you can see why many of us are skeptical that the MLHS is prepared to “forge ahead with dignity and respect”.
I concur with Debbie Baier. If you have a comment, have the courage to put your name to it. I think Decafnation is good for the community, but not if it is going to become a “beefs and Bouqets” publication. We already have one of those publications in the community. Without your name your comment has no value.
The only thing that matters in the past is Mack Laing’s bequest and by Comox accepting the property and cash was it honoured. All the other badmouthing that has been published above means nothing. What matters is how we forge ahead with dignity and respect to come to a meeting of the minds on how we can best honour Mack Laing’s gift.
Agreed, but forging ahead with dignity and respect is a difficult proposition when badmouthing is the stock and trade of the MLHS executive and some of their supporters – the content of this article, some of the responses, and MLHS founding member and CVN Director Maingon’s recent letter to the Comox Valley Record being prime examples.
Jim — Excellent comment. You are right on the point of my commentary. All that matters here is the moral issue. By accepting the money and property, the town accepted the terms of the trust. But they have ignored this obligation for 37 years. Reparations must be made. That can only happen if people at the table recognize this fact and genuinely try to find a solution.
And thanks for pointing out the two anonymous comments. They have been removed this morning. Decafnation’s policy is to only publish comments from people who provide real names and real email addresses. The public sees the real name, but I also see the email addresses. Unfortunately, I have been out of town with only intermittent Internet access and did not see the comments on this article until this morning.
George, you seem to be so focussed on attacking Mr. Arnott that you overlook many things that were apparent to those of us who attended the council meeting last week. Four of the seven councillors are on record as not wanting to restore the Shakesides house, for a variety of reasons, including the economic reality that it would be very costly and would mainly be paid for by Comox taxpayers. Both Maureen Swift and Ken Grant spoke at the meeting and were in favour of proceeding with the court case to vary the terms of the trust and allow the viewing platform option to proceed. After much discussion they did vote to allow the three month period though they did not say specifically why they voted this way. It may be that they want to give the new councillors an opportunity to see for themselves if some other consensus could be reached in a three month period. I also point out that “out of court” discussions have been going on for years and the consistent recommendation has been a viewing platform or kiosk of some sort.
It also appeared to me that at least one of councillors had a poor grasp of the issues in this dispute. Perhaps more time is needed for everyone to completely understand how we got to this point.
I will be surprised if a “win – win” solution can be found given that the M.L.H.S. has been clear that they will not compromise and insist that Shakesides be converted to a nature house. I hope that M.L.H.S. can change their approach and come to the table with the “open mind and good intentions” that you espouse in your opinion piece. We will see how things transpire over the next three months. At least council saw fit to put a time limit on these continued discussions so that it doesn’t take another 20 years to come up with yet another decision.
I also see many comments from you and others about the legal costs. Everyone seems to refer to some unnamed source as saying what they guess costs might be without any credible source. I have practiced law and been involved in litigation for over 25 years. I can assure you that the legal costs increased exponentially when the M.L.H.S. decided to apply to become a party to the court case.
Gordon — I mostly agree with your comments. But I am hopeful that a win-win solution can be found. And it’s not only the MLHS that needs to have an open mind and good intentions, the town and its supporters of demolition must come with that same attitude. I don’t know if there is a solution now, but all parties have never sat down in this environment and discussed it rationally. There is an opportunity now, for which I thank the four new council members. Without them, we wouldn’t have this opportunity. If it doesn’t work, so be it, and on to the court, where the outcome is always uncertain.
Where I disagree with you is allegation the it is the MLHS driving up the town’s legal costs. We don’t know what they are because a government won’t release the ongoing costs of an active case. So my source for the estimation is also a lawyer who worked up a rough calculation. But you cannot blame MLHS for standing up for what they believe is right. Are you saying people who believe a local government has breached a trust, a government that has already admitted to misappropriating a trust’s finances, should have their day in court? This case has dragged on because the town didn’t want the 500 pages of MLHS documents to be presented in evidence. This matter could have been settled last spring if the town hadn’t opposed intervenor status for MLHS. So I think it really is the town’s fear of losing this case, their fear of letting MLHS documents into evidence that has driven up the cost.
I happen to know what the Town’s legal costs are and the figure is much less than $100,000, and yes, the cost was driven up substantially because of the intervention of the MLHS. As far as your contention that the Town has committed “breach of trust” and “misappropriated funds” here are the facts from the Town’s former Finance Director:
“with regard to the Mack Laing Trust, there were funds taken out of it by council in the 1980s and 1990s for items like erection of the cairn honouring Mack Laing, compiling a biography on him, painting the nature panels, and improvements and maintenance of the park and building.
But since 1999, not one cent was removed from the trust, and interest was compounded on the trust’s funds annually.
The money that council contributed to the reserve in 2017 was a good faith offering to make up for decisions made by councils decades before them.”
So any funds taken from the Trust were spent on improving Mack Laing Park and maintaining Shakesides – it is not like the Town blew the money on trips to Hawaii.
Regarding your contention that “all parties have never sat down in this environment and discussed it rationally” – what do you mean? The mandate of the previously formed Mack Laing House Committee was to meet with all stakeholders and come up with a solution – which turned out to be the compromise decision to demolish the building and erect a viewing platform.
So because they didn’t like the result, the MLHS wants to revisit the issue and we will have yet another committee, and unless the resulting decision is to restore Shakesides the MLHS will no doubt label it a “farce” as well and both parties will be back in court, and this issue will drag on (probably until the building falls down).
If you won’t sign your first and last name to any comment, then you have nothing to say.
And I hope Decafnation will make this its policy for all future comments on any topic.
What does someone adding their complete name make to you? Are you judgemental, need the attention, are a braggart, or just nosy. People have attached their names and worn the social criticisms that people like you seem to feed on. The legitimacy of your comments must have an email and that should be enough. Why is it that we can no longer have a voice without be penalized by our opinion. Let it go and stop micromanaging something that needs more focus on the issue instead of who says it. Focus on the comments and ignore the name….does it make sense or do you have an opinion that we can all respect regardless who you are.
When the Town issued itself a permit to tear down Shakesides, the Mack Laing house he bequeathed to the Town of Comox, and then was in the process of ‘doing the deed’ it was inherently ‘wrong’. The only reason the house exists today is because of what basically was a ‘stop work’ order issued at the 11th hour by the Attorney General (AG) stating that the demolishment was a breach of Trust and would not be allowed unless the AG sanctioned it. We can not allow our governments, at any level, do things that are wrong; that is what democracy allows us to do. The house was to be demolished based on misinformation or lack of information which is not how government should run.
Let’s make the decision on Shakesides with calm, cool reasoning. Mack Laing Heritage Society (MLHS) has always been calm and cool, and presented and proven their points well with documented affidavits and letters, etc. Let’s hope that Comox town council can do the same at the upcoming discussions i.e. be calm and cool and base their information on fact rather than oral opinion.
At the same time both MLHS and the Town must remember the original conditions in the Mack Laing Will/Trust where he bequeathed house and land and said that his house should be a Nature Museum. Once the Town of Comox accepted the land they accepted the condition of nature museum also. You can not do one without the other.
Do the above described public comments made by MLHS executives sound calm and cool to you? As per the above:
MLHS executive members have publicly described council members as “vultures”, “heritage vandals and thieves who should be in jail”, the mayor as a “backwoods, backwater, political hack”, and residents who are opposed to their plans as “rednecks and right-wing bigots”
And again, if you read the information above, the MLHS previously voted against creating a Nature Museum in Shakesdides, for all the reasons outlined.
Judy you are not correct regarding the AG Report. It was not a stop work order at all, it was advice to the Council that, due to the terms of the Trust, they should obtain a ‘cy pres’ order to enable them to execute the trust in as close a fashion as possible to the original intent. The AG’s letter expressly recognizes that the condition of the building would not now permit the Trust monies to be expended in the manner originally intended. The Council dutifully complied with that advice and began the Court action to make it happen.
I don’t intend to weigh in on the debate over what happened in the past. I was at the all-candidates event in Comox in October where each of the contestants said they were in favour of settling this out of court. I was shocked when I read recently that the Town was not going to do that. I felt betrayed by Council. So, I’m very glad to read now that Bissinger, McKenna, Minions and McGowan had the strength and courage to honour the commitment they gave that night.
Thank you for weighing in Pat; as the aforementioned and much maligned chairman of the Committee I can attest that what Dave is saying is true, and confirm that this level of discourse is mild compared to what we went through previously. The MLHS member on our committee was rude, disruptive and unhelpful. Nothing positive was ever brought to the table only obstruction and cynicism and a series of unsolicited emails, to the point that other committee members complained and I had to bring it to the attention of the convening body. The decision not to recommend a museum was indeed unanimous, it was recorded in the minutes and all ctte members approved those minutes. So to revise history at this point is not helpful. The decision to go that route was not, repeat not made on financial or legal grounds, it was made because to renovate a suspect town building on a site with no road access , no fire protection or security and potential flooding on an Aboriginal Midden and in an environmentally sensitive stream area was considered too risky. Yes, two members did write a minority report that belied the majority conclusion but it was replete with errors and assumptions and half truths. By the way, the proposal to erect some kind of an informational kiosk or whatever was the committee’s way of offering at least something to the MLHS, we were not that enthusiastic about it, and were looking for resolution. In my opinion two things are needed now to move forward: a comprehensive and unbiased engineering assessment of the structure and a detailed plan from the MLHS on what they want to do, how they want to do it and how much it will cost. They will need to address the infrastructure and access issues so the Council will be able to assure the Tax payers that it will not” cost them a dime”. (Their words).
Is this how compromise will be reached? We have an opportunity for all sides to discuss this issue with fairness and equality. Pointing fingers and making accusations is not the way for this discussion to begin.
Sorry Pat, I’m trying to point out facts, not fingers. I (and many others) are tired of the anti-Comox tirades emanating from the author of this article, MLHS crusaders such as Maingon (who doesn’t live in Comox), and others, especially on this topic. They are heavy on political bias and light on facts.
Dave — I extend an invitation to you to have coffee and discuss the facts of this case. My article was labelled “commentary.” It is my opinion and it is based on facts. My appeal is for people to sit down with open minds and good intentions and attempt to resolve this issue out of court. This has not happened and the 90 day abeyance provides an opportunity. But it will only be useful and successful if all parties genuinely want a resolution. If that isn’t possible, then it should be decided by the courts. But I can say that having read all the affidavits from both the Town and the MLHS, the outcome is no slam dunk for either side. I would urge you to read them, too, they are all public documents.
That is where I disagree – that your opinion is based on facts. I have read all of the relevant documents from the MLHS and the Town and am intimately familiar with the issue. My initial response to your article is entirely factual.
Hi Dave — Respectfully, have you read “all” the MLHS affidavits, or just the ones you consider “relevant?” If you have read them all, then good for you. Not everyone joining in this discussion has done that. So how about that invitation for coffee?
As one of the MLHS-described “bigots, vandals, and redneck racists”, I have seen the contents of the Will/Trust, read some of Mack’s writings, all of the information on the MLHS website, all of the Town’s publicly-available documentation on Mack Laing Park and Shakesides, followed all of the print/online media coverage, and also read the prior Mack Laing House reports on Baybrook.
I attended some of the Advisory Committee meetings and read the resulting report. I contributed the financial analysis of the “MLHS business plan for Shakesides” in a recent report to council. I have also read the initial court applications from the Town, the AG, and the MLHS. I also have friends who knew Mack Laing personally, so yes, I am well-versed in the controversy.
For someone who attended no meetings, and who wasn’t appointed to the committee, you think you are well-informed, Dave – but not well enough if you think a vote to move the process forward is a vote against a nature house. We NEVER discussed a ‘nature house’. The term ‘museum’ was used throughout (as your quotation makes clear) and over my objections. Museum was the word used to kill any reasonable solution bu a stacked committee.
Yet ‘nature house’ is the word used in the first of the three Terms of Reference – and also forms part of the name of the Committee itself. How convenient to forget those annoying little details! Why did our Council allow this travesty to continue?
There is no comparison between the Filberg House/Park and Shakesides. None at all. Stop drawing false analogies. The Town did NOT save the Filberg – the Vancouver Foundation did. If they had not, that park would now be condos. The Lorne Hotel was NOT designated as a heritage building and it was privately owned.
The cost of upkeep for the Filberg, a mansion, is not in any way comparable to the cost of maintaining Shakesides, a small wooden structure – which nevertheless still has a Trust fund for that purpose, by the way. The Filberg, despite being owned by a millionaire, did not.
The final vote on the Committee is the one that counts, and that was NOT unanimous. I – and others – kept reminding the chairman of our Terms of Reference. We were ignored. That was the fault of the chairman. His copy of Roberts Rules of Order must be the one that was revised in China. It certainly was not the one we know on this continent.
Wrong again, Angela. I did in fact attend some of the committee meetings, as well as received a copy of the final report and related information – you must have a different version – mine is the one sent to the Town from the committee chair. But it makes no difference – according to your paranoid ramblings the committee was stacked with biased, bigots and it was all a grand conspiracy against the MLHS…
FYI at no point in the above response did I compare the Filberg Heritage Lodge and Park and Shakesides, and the fact remains that (as stated previously) the Town has been subsidizing the upkeep of the Filberg Park to the tune of over $100k per year.
You mean like the Filberg Heritage Lodge and Park? That the Town annually contributes over $100,000 to? Or the Lorne Hotel, which burned down? Did the Town “allow” that?
First, as that ‘committee member from the MLHS’, I can categorically deny Mr McLeod’s contention that I voted not to restore Shakesides on the Advisory Committee. It was NOT unanimous in any way, since one member split her vote and two voted against it. So that statement is patently untrue – and it is backed up by my legal affidavit on that subject. I voted against all such motions. The chairman spent half an hour blasting me personally in the last meeting because I did exactly what I was there to do – speak up for the wishes of Mack Laing, as expressed in his Will and the Memorandum he signed with the Town.
The chairman did not record votes opposed to the majority. Of course not.
There was also a Minority Report issued on the many failings of that Committee – by the two people who voted against the final proposal. It has been filed with the court, as has a personal letter of complaint written to Mayor Ives by the other signatory of that Minority Report.
The Committee was a farce, as it was intended to be. Why else stack it with known opponents to Shakesides and representatives who were beholden to the Town for either their stipends or their grants?
Why else not even follow the Terms of Reference it was given? No amount of back slapping and self-congratulation by you folks can justify that enormous disregard for terms dictated by the Town. The Committee WAS a failure. Of democracy, of intent, and of process. The chairman must accept responsibility for that.
At least be honest about what really bothers you, Dave. It’s that small groups of people might want to stay more than five minutes in a park that has been allowed to be overgrown with invasives and overrun by dogs. How can a nature house be anything but positive – in a park and house donated to the Town by a generous old man. Would you do anything of the sort? Would anyone in this town do so now, knowing all this?
There is a great deal of work to be done in the park. We look forward to seeing the “Friends of Mack Laing Nature Park” on their knees, with us, pulling out the invasives the Town has allowed to infest this nature park. These are anything but ‘natural’.
Mack left that house to the Town. He left money for it to be turned into a Nature Museum. THAT’S why it has to be challenged in court. We’re doing this for Mack. His wishes were not honoured – but rent was collected for 30 years from that house, which apparently could not be converted into a nature museum, but was perfectly all right as a rental property, while trust funds were used elsewhere. No report explains how this decision was reached by town administration. No engineer examined the house, no financial estimate for either the conversion or the operation was generated. Nothing. Yet we are expected to accept that this was a valid decision.
No wonder the Town is reluctant to admit its fault. Unfortunately, all is being revealed – and there’s a great deal more if you read the court submissions. The Trust was enough then, and it’s enough now, with help from the community and grants we have been assured we can get, to restore and operate a small nature house. Why not give it a try? If it fails, 75% the Trust fund will remain, under the terms of the Trust itself. Only 25% can be used for upkeep.
Or do you like your taxes being used to enrich lawyers as the Town tries to overturn the Trust of a generous man?
Maligning the MLHS is a popular game with our opponents. We won a BC Heritage Award in 2016 for our work. We have not stopped working to honour Mack Laing – and we never will.
Apparently you didn’t read your own committee report – you voted against option 1 according to the report and to the meeting minutes – are you saying the other committee members and the chairman are all lying? To refresh your memory:
Option 1 – Retain and restore Shakesides as a stand-alone natural history museum; (unanimously voted against)
Option 2 – Retain and restore Shakesides as a heritage building and provide hybrid solution with CAMS; (majority voted against)
Option 3 – Do not retain the building, and create a website as a virtual museum whilst working with CAMS to house some artifacts (majority voted for)
As to “maligning the MLHS”, coming from you that is hilariously ironic given that in the past your executive members have publicly described council members as “vultures”, “heritage vandals and thieves who should be in jail”, the mayor as a “backwoods, backwater, political hack”, and residents who are opposed to their plans as “rednecks and right-wing bigots”
I totally agree with Dave McLeod and take issue with the “Broad Community” support statement. I walk every day through the park and not a single daily user has said they wish that we would pave paradise for a small groups self interest. Take the house down and make more room for the natural world which was Mack Laing’s wish in the first place.
Hello Ted — I would suggest that the absence of spontaneous comments from people enjoying a walk in the park about “paving paradise for a small group’s self interest” indicates nothing. And I would further suggest a reading of Mack Laing’s will, the terms of the trust, to ascertain what Mack’s “wish in the first place” actually was.
Another politically biased article masquerading as journalism. Let’s review some facts – the Mack Laing Advisory Committee you reference voted unanimously (including the committee member from the MLHS) not to restore Shakesides as a Natural History Museum. Why? For reasons patently obvious to anyone who has visited the site. Quoting from the Committee report:
“The location was regarded as unsuitable for a museum because of difficult public access and traffic issues, security and fire protection and flooding issues. The building has been deemed unsuitable for this purpose since 1981, and although the the committee thought the building might be able to be restored, they were not all entirely convinced that it could be brought to a standard in terms of display and archiving facilities that would justify it becoming a permanent addition to the Comox Museum Society. The committee also thought that although it may be possible to raise funds to restore the building in the short to medium term, a comprehensive and defendable business plan needed to be created to attract those funds. There were significant concerns regarding the ongoing operation and long-term sustainability of this option, particularly as the Comox museum operation is already stretched in terms of funding and staffing. The availability of volunteers to staff and maintain this facility could not always be guaranteed, and on-going funding for the operation would quickly deplete any reserves from the trust fund, necessitating either user fees or support from the Town. Accordingly, the committee unanimously believed that this proposal was unsustainable and it was not recommended.”
So no, contrary to their public statements the MLHS does not care about restoring Shakesides as a public Nature Museum in accordance with Mack’s wishes. What they and their sponsors, Comox Valley Nature, want is clear – a waterfront meeting place for their activities, subsidized by the taxpayers of Comox. From the March 2015 CVN newsletter:
“To maintain continuity, we are handicapped by our lack of visibility outside the Web. In spite of its many activities, unlike SWI, CVCS, Project Watershed etc., CVN has no physical home or office with which we are identified within the valley. A unique opportunity arose in June 2013, when Betty Brooks discovered that Baybrook was about to be demolished . As many of you noted, saving this heritage and using it according to Mack Laing’s will as a Nature House was a no-brainer, that would provide CVN with a home”
When the House Committee also examined the option of restoring Shakesides as a non-public heritage property and use it for tours and conferences, the MLHS member voted for as it would perfectly satisfy the needs of the MLHS/CVN.
When this option was rejected and instead by majority vote the choice was made to demolish the derelict building and construct a viewing platform the MLHS behaved in their usual fashion and publicly described the committee as “staffed with bigots” and proceeded to leak the confidential results of the committee vote to the Echo newspaper.
Good luck to the new Council in attempting to reach a compromise with the MLHS in the next 90 days (or 90 years). They will accept nothing less than restoration of Shakesides for their private use.
Regarding the increasing legal costs to vary the Trust – the Town and the Attorney General agreed to vary the Trust to use the funds for a viewing platform almost 2 years ago. The only reason the issue has not been long since resolved and the legal costs have escalated is because of the intervention of the MLHS/CVN in the court proceedings. Hearing the MLHS president express concern about the rising legal costs to the taxpayers of Comox is disingenuous in the extreme.
Regarding the wishes of the new Councillors, note that Pat McKenna stated during the meeting that he is not in favor of restoring Shakesides.