I spent half the day yesterday responding to a flurry of e-mails that arrived before Tuesday's Council meeting. Residents of the Hartwell Way area were upset the decision made by the last Council, on the eve of the election, that the street not be completed as planned, was reversed.
It's easy to say purchasers should ask the right questions before they buy homes. Many do. Others just accept what they are told by a real estate agent.
I know I did.
So, because I understand their dis-appointment, I sent each an e-mail to explain why the alignment could not be changed. It was set years before their lots were created. It is the determining factor of where the lots will be.No subdivison is planned in isolation. Roads alignments are the route for water and sewers and land contours are the determining factor for both. Dead end roads are verboten.
Keyhole courts are the safest place for children. But no roads are safe. Environmental sensitivity is paramount in planning.If valley land has to be crossed by a road, for best practise that's how it has to be.Rivers are crossed. Ravines are crossed. Valley lands must sometimes also be crossed.
The previous Council were or should have been aaware of all the factors and the region's authority. The decision to end the road where it sits was neither practical nor possible. It was political. It's the reason Councils suspend operations during an election campaign
No doubt, the residents are not consoled. But I thought,in a little while it might help them to accept it. If they decide to sell their homes for a different location, they will be a little wiser second time around.
That's why I didn't post yesterday.
Susan Walmer came back again as a delegation on Tuesday. This time she wasn't lambasting Council and staff for undoing all the good work of the previous council. Instead she requested Council delay a decision to give the residents and developer to sit down and possibly settle their "differences" and perhaps prevent an O.M.B. hearing.It was a change in tune.
On Tuesday we dealt with half the items we didn't get done at the previous meeting.
We will deal with the other half at the next meeting.
We still didn't finish until almost midnight.But at least we got some stuff done.
Councillor Gaertner's constant quest for clarification and repeat profession of not understanding the clarification requested, no matter how many times it's repeated and re-phrased to assist her understanding, is something of a trial.
It is not in accordance with any Rules of Order I am familiar with.
Thursday 27 January 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I agree not to trust what a real estate agent tells you when you purchase a home. However, I still believe that the onus is on the purchaser to contact the planning department to find out what is planned before buying in case there are some nasty surprises after the fact. I learned this the hard way where we did make a mistake because we did not do our homework. It is not difficult to find out what is on the plans; it just takes a little bit of initiative and effort. Many people can't be bothered and therefore should live with the consequences for their apathy.
Imagine if every little request for change was allowed; it would be a ridiculous state of affairs. We are supposed to be living among the most educated young people in history. They have all kinds of access to information, unheard of before. They should not only learn how to use it, but how and when to apply it for their benefit.
I have no sympathy.
I wish that I knew I was moving close to Robert the Bruce - the more that I read from him the wackier he seems. That Christopher Watts is right, RtB is an ass.
I agree with Anonymous Jan 27th -1:45 PM:
"Many people can't be bothered and therefore should live with the consequences for their apathy."
So poetic, and so true.
"Imagine if every little request for change was allowed; it would be a ridiculous state of affairs."
Train whistles in your backyard, roads in your front yard, cludesacs that are planned for future development, all of it was ripe for debate. The needs of the few could easily be provided at the expense of the needs of the entire town.
That's NIMBYism extraordinaire, and was a large part of my frustrations with this past term of council. I'm glad to see the strides this new council is taking in reversing both the waste, and divisive behavior that has no place in our town's affairs.
The only point where I disagree is that I don't think its a matter of too much or too little sympathy.
It is one of educating people, and I hope that with respect to Heartwell that all of those concerned residents were able to watch the council meeting, in particular councilor Thompson's reasons for supporting the extension.
He was on point, and succinctly laid out the case for the extension. I don't think it was said better by anyone else at the table, and hope that the Auroran includes it in their editorials for next week.
Some people educate themselves upfront, others, those being the apathetic, get schooled.
It comes at a cost of wasting others time when for example some councilors have not taken the necessary time to "clarify" the items before a council meeting.
And no we shouldn't express any sympathy to those that continually fail to comprehend or understand agenda items. Its unfortunate for the majority of council that one or two were re-elected, but at the end of the day (which unfortunately is midnight when these meetings are ending) the ignorance has not impacted the corporation as dearly as it had last term.
"Roads in your front yards"...
Really.
Those are roads that had teenagers speeding at +70 km/hr at 3:30 pm, just when younger kids were walking home on asphalt curbs that serve as sidewalks on Spruce St between Mark St and Catherine Ave..
I'd love to move my old street back to the time when (1) we all knew each other and I could call the teen's mom and (b) when cars were not engineered to go from 0-60 km/hr between four way stops and (c) when I wasn't given an "all" or "nothing" choice about traffic calming.
Christopher, you are wrong on this call.
The request wasn't ridiculous. The response was questionable. The result is much better than what we had in the past.
Elizabeth,
With all due respect I'd love to move my town back in time to before you were sued by our former mayor, or maybe back before she accosted me at Shoppers Drug Mart, or maybe......well no I think it may be best served to keep the discussion in the here and now.
As per your points:
1.) how do you ascertain that the cars that are driving recklessly are from the neighborhood? Do you recognize the cars? Have license plate numbers? If so have you tried to vet this with the Police?
If the problem is identifiable repeat offenders the problem may be easier to resolve. Repeat traffic enforcement is proven to work in changing the behaviors of problem drivers.
2.) Cars with the ability to accelerate from 0-60 in under 15 seconds have been around for over 50 years. Impeeding the speed of the vehicle (speed limiters) or creating an obstacle course for these drivers only serves to create an extra challenge.
You have failed to convince me that the problem is more to do with the vehicle and not the driver.
3.) What confuses me the most is when you write "The response was questionable. The result is much better than what we had in the past."
The response was very questionable and you objected to having an all or nothing choice, as you should have.
But then you settled for the same solution, which I am at a loss to understand resulted in a "much better than what we had in the past".
Perhaps the neighborhood has seen a reduction in erratic driving habits, and that would be good, for some, particularly in that neighborhood.
Would an alternate solution have been able to provide the same result for those some, as well as consider the bigger picture of the town?
I believe so, and that is why I have a problem with "all or nothing" solutions, they often provide all to some and nothing to everyone else. But hey, if you're in the some column then "yeah" for you. If you're responsible for emergency response, snow removal, urban planning or simply just trying to drive through our town than boo-sucks-to-you.
Thanks for re-engaging me on the traffic calming issue, I will look to revisit it in more detail on my blog as to not sidetrack the discussion here.
I appreciate your perspective.
Post a Comment