Bathurst Discussion Continues

Bathurst Blasphemer has left a new comment on your post "Facts For The Record":
I would expect that the subject of prudent spending at the Regional level is a source of endless questions, arguments and counter-arguments.
I certainly do not want to extend this discussion endlessly but I would like to make a few points.Anyone can view the 5 page noise barrier policy on the Region's website.
It is dated 2006.
No doubt the policy is partially the result of noise concerns from folks like us in the Bathurst area.
In short - the Region will install a barrier under certain circumstances:
IF the noise increases to a certain level.
IF it can be shown a barrier will be effective.
IF there are no other alternatives.
The Region will pay IF the noise is a result of a Capital Improvement to CERTAIN Regional roads - such as expanding Bathurst to four lanes.
In addition, under certain circumstances, and subject to funding approval, a "neighbourhood initiative" noise barrier could still be installed if enough neighbours agreed to put up half the cost.
An example of that would be if Bathurst was still two lanes but area residents thought it was getting too noisy anyway.
I expect Councillor Buck would argue that the Region shouldn't be paying for any of it.
I also expect some would agree.
However.
The policy is clear and applies to any neighbourhoods in the Region that qualify.
This is not a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" or "one of the Bathurst residents must know someone" deal.
Under the policy we qualified so we got it.
Can the Town of Aurora say the same about the traffic calming project in Northeast Aurora?
Does the Town have a standard traffic calming policy that applies equally to all?
Wasn't that project a classic example of "squeaky wheel" that should have been "neighbourhood initiative"?
Now it appears as if we might all have to pay to remove these very same chicanes that were once so "necessary"?
The amount of tax dollars involved in the traffic calming situation is certainly less than the noise barrier but the principle is the same:
Establishing and following a written policy for all is preferable, in my opinion at least, to the "squeaky wheels with friends on council" approach, even if that policy is a result of prodding from concerned residents.
And unlike a "favour", a written policy can be debated, argued, amended or replaced.
Again, I apologize for the wordiness.

**********************
No need to apologize. Wes appreciate the information provided.  I'm equally sure no-one  faults  Bathurst Street residents  for doing something they would  likely do themselves if the need .arose.
The Region's spending policies are not the subject of endless questioning . They are never talked about at all.
People do not relate to the Region. I contend the Region does not relate to people.
The traffic calming project in the north east quadrant of the town is exactly the same category as  Bathurst Street fencing. It had  less to commend it. At least the Region went  to the trouble of  creating  a policy, however fragile, to make things look right.
You are right that I do not agree to spreading the cost of  neighborhood projects .  You are also right that some would agree .I would add,others would not.
In the essence of democratic politics  we are free to disagree without hating each other..
A  policy is it is not chiselled in stone. A policy can be observed or ignored. It can be changed  for political expediency... It can be variously interpreted. .
If the policy was advertised and promoted, the Region would  be inundated with requests for
acoustic barriers on all  Regional roads that have become busier with  time and development .
Why would developers agree to erect acoustic barriers  if  the noise decibel was not at  the required level at the time of building.?
How would the  Region be able to predict it ever would reach the decibel level to need a barrier?
I do not remember any public debate or discussion about the policy when it was adopted in 2006.
There is no requirement under the Planning Act for  any level of government  to publicize policies.They have no teeth.
Is there anything in the policy about  paying  with development levies rather that adding  to the
tax burden.
That "Neighbourhood Initiative" referred to in the Region's policy. Sounds suspiciously like a  Neighborhood Improvement.
I  referred to that already..
The problem is a Neighbourhood Improvement  is paid  for by a tax imposed on the benefiting  property. It's not attached to the owner. It's attached to the property..
The Region is not the tax collector. .That's the town's  responsibility.
There is no practical way the Region could enter i an agreement with property owners to pay 50% of a  project. .They do not have the mechanism.
Not everyone  would be interested in this discussion.  I think my readers are.
I thank you for providing information we would otherwise never have discovered.
That's the burr under my saddle with the Region.
And I do not have a solution..
And that's the other burr.
.   . . .