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.
. . . .
To be brief, I have no idea how the Region would collect money either.
ReplyDeleteAs to your other Where and How questions, the answers are in the Regional policy document.
Now Traffic Calming is a different situation because it is controlled by the Town.
I believe that Kennedy Street residents have requested calming measures.
Are there plans to set a policy or simply debate the need on a case by case basis?
Should we all pay or should the neighbourhood pay all or some of the cost?
Growth has its advantages but sometimes causes problems too.
GO has already announced that in the not too distant future we will have weekend train service, and eventually all day service if the demand is there.
A GO train rumbling through Aurora possibly every hour.
That should make for interesting debate about level crossings and whistles.