Madhunt Publishing Company
Tecumseth Free Press Online
To email: Tony Veltri .
New Tecumseth Free Press Online welcomes and reads letters to the editor reflecting the diverse views of all readers.
Letters on timely subjects of broad interest will be published. Letters may be edited for clarity, accuracy and brevity.
We do not publish poetry, third-party or anonymous letters, or those signed with a pseudonym. We will however post letters without a name if warranted.
For verification purposes, your address and daytime telephone number are required, although we do not publish them.
We do not include the writer's email address,
unless requested to do so.
Tenders lacked same terms Norcross securedto the editor,
Posted September 24, 2012
While I agree it is probably in the best interest of the Town to recapture the Hornet's Nest space, and that given the nature of the contract there will have to be a buy-out worked out with Richard Norcross, the question for me is how did we get here in the first place?
A news story posted last week quoted Ward 1 councillor Bob Marrs suggesting councillor Norcross was the only one who came forward to operate the restaurant.
Did it not occur to Mr. Marrs and council that when all these other experienced operators were questioning the viability of the operation, that perhaps it was not a good idea?
Further, in the same article, it is also suggested that there were many ways the contract could have been written that would have led to different results, so this is really no different, except that in the original council approval there was a renegotiation clause and in the final draft there was not. This seems to me like a big difference.
I think that at least there should have been something about the financial expectations being 'X' and if not met, the Town could terminate the agreement since they were putting up all the cash. (Ed Note: Richard Norcross has replied to this assertion suggesting: "There were minimal targets and we not only met them but we surpassed them).
Also the fact it's binding because the finished copy was
ratified by council, makes me wonder if they read and understand what
it was they were approving.
So in essence all the outside bidders were required to build out and operate the restaurant entirely at their own expense. That's why the tenders failed.
So instead of going to tender again offering to partner with a successful proponent by offering more lease-hold improvements, the Town decided to sole source to Mr. Norcross and put up all the money to build out the restaurant at taxpayers expense. Why?