09 August 2007
what's done is done and cannot be undone?
Although it is clear that the City of Waterloo will need to proceed with the controversial west side developments, the entire issue continues to generate a heated emotional response. Rambling Rose attended the 23 July 07 City of Waterloo Council meeting and noted how polarized and politicized the community dialogue had become. On the one hand, Regional and City staff were insisting they were willing to listen to any "additional technical professionally-substantiated information" and bemoaned the abundance of "misinformation" [=====> a lie or erroneous information?] that was clouding the issue. On the other side, the dedicated environmentalists hammered away at the related environmental issues with one delegate asserting, "this is a democracy not a bureaucracy!"
With a provincial election just around the next corner, it was hardly surprising to find candidates appearing as delegates or pressing the flesh-- a dozen or so politicians-- present, past and future had determined that spending a summer Monday evening in Council Chambers was a politically correct move. More than one delegate issued a call for provincial intervention in this municipal planning issue. This, in spite of assurances by the regional director of Community Planning that he would be using the Places to Grow Act to protect the Waterloo Moraine. Perhaps few in the audience were aware that this individual had been seconded to work with provincial planning staff in devising the greenbelt legislation. There were even out-of -town delegates representing earthroots.org who rose to challenge developments that were leapfrogging the greenbelt.
The morning after the night before, the local rag opined thus: "“The battle to keep three new subdivisions out of Waterloo’s west side has been lost...The province has designated Waterloo Region as an area for significant growth, growth that will demand not only more dense developments in city centres but new housing subdivisions – as the three that will and should be built in west Waterloo....If we want to grow...we have to find new places to put growth, to house the workers expanding our high-tech sector. The challenge facing us to do this in a way that reconciles competing interests, that protects prime farmland as well as environmentally sensitive lands.” (1)
If The Record's verdict was meant to resolve the issue once and for all, it did not. Following are brief excerpts from the ongoing discussion:
- “City council doesn’t actually have much say in development, beyond what it has set out in its
official plan. If an area is listed as residential in the plan*, then the city is bound to allow
residential development. If it doesn’t, developers have a case they can appeal to the Ontario
Municipal Board...The OMB is a board of 25 unelected officials, who hold the real power over
development...Even when city councils do choose to deny development in favour of promoting
the environment, many developers will appeal the decision....Why not?....excellent rate of
success....2003 study commissioned by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists found 70% of OMB
decisions in favour of developers over environmental proponents...
a. Notes: * Apparently in 1995 and 2000, the City of Waterloo did not update the
plan ====> and why not? ....[hence, the effective plan dates to 1990 but is currently being updated ==> public input at www.waterloo.ca > plan it ] (2) - “...council, with all of its good intentions and campaign promises is simply a collection of well-meaning people whose voice is ultimately directed by city staff...The politicians do what city staff advises and the developers influence city staff and few new visions, from a democratic perspective, really take flight. Our public meetings are merely a chimera of democracy." (3)
- "We are painted into a corner by archaic provincial legislation that allows developments to be 'grandfathered' to only conform to the applicable rules of the day when they were submitted. In this case, we are dealing with a 1992 scenario in an increasingly intelligent and environmentally aware 2007." (4) ===> this rookie councillor had the wit to ask staff, "... a planning decision based on market forces???"
Time for some more homework and more questions to ask? For starters, the pre- and post-development infiltration rates cited as justification for CWC (third pipe) system need clarification: 1) are the pre-development infiltration rates based on tile-drained agricultural lands and the post-development rates based on the same lands with the drainage tiles removed during the development process? and 2) would the CWC system break down if every householder installed rain barrels to save on rising water costs? --that question was raised and elicited this response "we need most of the water to recharge the aquifer."
“One of the problems with modern society is that it places more importance on things that have a price than on things that have a value. Breathing clean air, for instance, or having clean water in the rivers, or having legal rights -–these are things that don’t have a price but have a huge value. Oil does have a price, but its value is much less. And sometimes we make the mistake.” Fajardo quoted by Alex Shoumatoff, “The Gasping Forest,” Vanity Fair May 2007
Photo copyright Sandamara Images 2002: split cedar rail snake fence in the Halliburton Highlands suggests the 20 years these three subdivisions have been in the planning stages.
Sources: (1)“New subdivisions need to be built,” editorial the Record 25 Jul 07; (2)Helen Kaluzny, The Citizens of Waterloo must push for smarter growth,” The Record 07 Aug 07; (3)Marty Remple, Waterloo city staff dominates the city,” letter to editor The Record 02 Aug 07; (4) Karen Scian, Waterloo council ignores the long-term view, The Record 02 Aug 07; (5) Jeff Outhit, No time line for housing approval, The Record 07 Aug 07.
Labels: land use
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
