Tuesday, December 18th, 2007 ::: City Hall: Other

We last wrote about Fred Dominelli in Inspector Vito Furlano Botches Inspection of Former City Councillor’s Front Street Extension Billboards.

Today, some more from the Fred department. In early 2006, Gerry Gawryluk’s Moneta Media & Marketing applied for a variance to erect five Gardiner Expressway video screens on Fred Dominelli’s Front Street Extension property:

After that variance application was rejected, Mr. Dominelli tried again. The next variance application was applied for by former Chief Building Official Pam Coburn and appeared on the supplementary agenda of a special meeting of Toronto and East York Community Council, with no public notice. Still, the variance application was once again rejected, since it amounted to the same thing Community Council rejected a few months earlier.

While he twice failed to obtain permission for the billboards through Community Council, Mr. Dominelli also threatened to sue the current Chief Building Official under Section 25 of the Building Code Act for the permits for the signs that he wants so dearly.

Here is Bruce Maschmeyer, CEO of Moneta Media & Marketing, explaining why Mr. Dominelli is entitled to the permits for the five signs City Council turned down:

After that letter failed to light a fire under the Buildings Department, Dominelli hired Paul DeMelo of Kagan Shastri who fired off a letter with content pretty much lifted from Maschmeyer:

Basically DeMelo is saying that Astral Media moved five billboards which used to be on Dominelli’s property to neighbouring railway land. DeMelo claims the City should issue his client permits to replace the five billboards that were moved off his land even though the permits don’t conform to the the by-law. The reason they don’t conform to the by-law is their proximity to the new Astral signs. For his work on the file, DeMelo charged Mr. Dominelli $60,000 and didn’t get the permits for his client.

The signs by-law provides protection for non-conforming signs so long as they are not “substantially altered.” Here is buildings staffer Michael Fry explaining why Dominelli isn’t entitled to the permits: “it is safe to say that the removal of the signs is a substantial alteration, and therefore, the signs do not enjoy the benefit of legal non-conforming status”.

Note that Fry’s memo is written only one day after DeMelo’s letter. One thing is wrong about Michael Fry’s memo to Victor Araujo. Building Inspector Eli Yunger never actually inspected the Astral signs. That’s a complication that DeMelo never noticed. Actually DeMelo never noticed a few more things about Astral’s signs. More on that later. Meanwhile, Mr. Maschmeyer donated $700 to Fred Dominelli’s election campaign to unseat Councillor Cesar Palacio:

Now most outdoor advertising folks who send us hate mail are smart enough not to use their real names. Not Gerry Gawryluk of Moneta Media & Marketing. Gerry is an erstwhile operative with Frank Carnavale’s City Hall Group. Moneta is a billboard developer nobody’s really heard of because they haven’t developed many billboards, see above. We received an e-mail from Gerry yesterday.

Notice how Gerry moves from accusing our blog of being “sloppy, illiterate and poorly written out with no logic” to asking quite incomprehensibly, and we quote: “Why do you feel bring two separate issues together and lamely trying to link them “Journalism?”.

From: gerryg2 {at} sympatico(.)ca
Subject: signs
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:36:14 -0500

Dear Rami

It is with some interest I have been following your morphing into a crusader against what you consider illegal signs. Having an interest in advertising I do not find them offensive and decided to investigate you.

At first it all seemed innocent but the further I dug the more the truth seemed to be hidden. The questions and comments I have are non prejudice and are not meant to cast any aspirations on your self or anybody else mentioned.

I am curious about the following:

1. Are you a registered “not for profit” organization?
2. Is this your full time job
3. Which sign company funds you indirectly?
4. Rumor has it there are City Council member being given money that is funneled to you, is there truth to this rumor?
5. The smaller guys are being attacked and only some of the big guys are feeling your anger. How do you explain this?
6. Why are your “exposures” sloppy, illiterate and poorly written out with no logic but only slander behind them? This happens especially when you try to tie the notes between the signs and unrelated events?
7. Why do you feel bring two separate issues together and lamely trying to link them “Journalism?
8. How are you getting FOI information so quickly between the application (when there is one) and being able to publish the info, be it correct or not?
9. Is your name on the FOI application or is it elected officials?
10. Why do you use personal attacks on individuals to make your weak cases (almost all of them) seem to have merit.
11. How large is legal defense fund, I hear there are lots of law suits coming down the pipe against you for slander and misrepresentation.

In general it seems on the surface you are not being honest with your claims and are placing the livelihood of others in jeopardy. I am stating the above not as fact or slander but am trying to gain a better understanding of your actions and motivations in regards to your activities.

Your prompt attention and honesty in answering these questions would go a long way in proving you are not a shrill for a large sign company and are not being feed money from certain council members with their own agenda.

Thanking you in Advance

Gerry Gawryluk

Frank Carnevale you will remember, is the guy who knew too much about Tom Jakobek. And Pam Coburn, she left her job as head of Municipal Licensing and Standards after her relationship with a man named Joseph Carnavale became public. Try as we can, we just can’t prove a link between Tom Jakobek and billboards.