"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Thursday 18 August 2011

Walk-About

On Tuesday,Council took a tour of  lands we own on Leslie Street where Petch House was perched .

The property was purchased in 2002. It was known  future sites were  needed for a second fire hall  a recreation complex , a pumping station of sorts for York Region and sports fields .

The parcel became available at the right price and  CAO of the day, Larry Allyson recommended the purchase to Council.

Subsequently. the farm of Stew Burnett became available. Services ran past the property. It meant two million dollars required to service the Leslie Street lands would not be required immediately , so the town bought the Burnett farm as well and eventually facilities were located on Wellington Street instead.

The  Leslie Street lands were placed in the hands of  a real estate corporation in the last term.

When the Petch House was being dismantled, I was over there a few times and ventured further onto the property.   It looked fine to me. The Master Recreation Plan prepared by the consultant had recommended the town re-think the idea of selling the lands for industrial purposes.

But former Councillor Evalina Mac Eachern and the former  Mayor's friend, Ken Whitehouse, nixed that idea and the property was subsequently designated employment.

Now we are said to be in a deficit situation for recreation lands in the amount of 121 hectares.It's far in excess of that allowed to be acquired by the Planning Act and  proportionately more than the town has   ever acquired  before.

We are contemplating 2011 prices to fill that need.

We currently own 79 acres of beautiful lands . We made  a good deal for them in 2002.  Funds were borrowed and re-paid  from tax revenues. We now need to use those lands.

As the  master recreation consultant advised ,I think we need to re-think the idea of selling all of the land for employment. They are needed  for the community.

The land is not  surplus to our needs. I  believe it is never too late for a Council to  re-think a decision to put community needs  first.

I am not seeing any signs  Council shares my belief.

When  two parents came to council and presented a horrendous view of a piece of playground equipment and demanded its removal, I didn't see it then either.

They were permitted to return two more times.  Each time to repeat, without challenge, the contention the town had equipment in our playgrounds that were a threat to the life and limb of our children.

After the first exhibition, other parents with opinions  and experiences of their own came forward to argue  the contrary.

E-mails galore flew fast and furious. Links were provided to learned articles in  renowned publications such as the New York Times, fulminating against the modern practice of making playgrounds so innocuous as to be totally without interest, purpose or use for the developing child.

We do not do that in Aurora . We choose equipment with care and intelligence. And thanks to community interest and input on the issue, we will continue to follow that practice.

But Oh My Lord, what a load of malarkey we listened to in the meantime. Over and over and over again. Town business went unattended, and a serious item  was being decided once again after midnight.

So now we have another issue for the community to deal with.

Will we sell land  we bought for community  needs for less than we can replace it?

Or will we  invite the community's input  to the decision to be made?

I think no to the first and yes to the second.

 I need  support from the community. I don't have a sense of it from Council.

Just as happened  in support of stimulating and challenging activities in town  playgrounds, we should not allow all 79 acres of perfectly suitable lands  needed  for the purpose of sport and recreation, be sold out from under us at bargain basement prices.

What say you? 

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is such a simple question with an obvious answer.

If Council spends as much time on the land issue relative to value as it did on the park apparatus the matter will still be in discussion during the term of the next council.

I find that several councillors are unable to express themselves in simple organized sentences and the thoughts or opinions they are attempting to state become blurred and unintelligible.

Possibly they should consider writing out in advance exactly what they would like to say and then stick to the script.

It must be frustrating to sit around the table, paying close attention to one's fellow councillors, and at the conclusion of their remarks, not understand what they have just said.

This is very often the case with motions where no one seems to have a clue what the mover said or meant and the exercise needs to be repeated, often more than once.

Finally, there should be a procedural change restricting a delegate to two appearances on a given issue. Last Tuesday was a complete waste of time on the part of several delegates and contributed to Council's inability to deal with the Agenda.

Anonymous said...

At the all candidates meeting John Abel spoke of
the need for recreational lands, so I would expect him
to jump onto this with both feet,maybe even lead the
charge. At the same meeting Wendy displayed a total
ignorance of sports, so you can count her out as usual.

Anonymous said...

The groups that put on that event showed they
could work for a common cause. Enlist them .The
Mayor is no slouch when it comes to supporting
sports and God knows, Sandra Humphreys deserves a
break from the cultural parasites.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't that the time when people clapped when you
got up to speak & Momac exchanged confused
glances ? They did not realize that their gig was up.
Loved it and telling your daughter that she should save
the pamphlets for those who didn't have them. Now
that earned a genuine grin !

Anonymous said...

Why does "recreation" have to be synonymous with "sports"? There are many different types of recreational pursuits that do not have to include organized sports with screaming coaches and parents on the sidelines - and bad language to boot.
Isn't it time to be a little more creative?

LivingInAurora.ca said...

Hi Evelyn,
I don't know what is the right answer to this, I only got few meters pass the Petch house, the land looks beautiful and it would be a shame for it to be developed.


You may not remember but when you visited the Petch House site the day roof was taken down, we had a nice conversation with you, and you said it yourself, this is so beautiful here, and we all know that it will be developed one day.

In fact it is beautiful ... I can only hope that it will stay like that.

Anna :)

Anonymous said...

Anna said "the land looks beautiful and it would be a shame for it to be developed."

Oh yeah.... went by there today. The sight of thigh-high goldenrod was so inspiring!!!!

Give me a break - this is a dumpy field that had a dumpy building hiding it. Bring on the machines!