Comment 14260

By g. (anonymous) | Posted November 20, 2007 at 02:34:25

Di Ianni is very carefully trying to set the board against those who wish to oppose this latest bit of developer friendly city action. don't fall for it. this is not an environmental issue first and foremost. the negative consequences for the environment will be terribly but that is not really the point that should be debated. the point is that we don't need ANY more land in the urban boundary regardless of what it is used for. what's the rush larry? if we had business knocking at our door begging for serviced land to build eco businesses i could see going to the province and asking for a couple of hundred acres. but really, 5,000? come on. this is about making money for developers who already have an interest in the lands that are being included in the expansion. pure and simple. buy it cheap from farmers and sell it to whoever comes along at ten times the price after the your buddies at the city build you some nice roads and sewers. sounds like a capatilist's wet dream to me. unfortunately, like any commodity, the more there is the less the rest of it already owned by the all us hard working tax payers is worth. i'm not trying to suggest here that the environmental disasters that this would become are not important, it is, and it is the reason to fight against this, but it is not the face the debate should take. and the reason is that the environment is just what ol' lyin' larry is hoping to hinge the debate on, 'cause he knows when it comes to the health of the planet, hamiltonians in general are more worried about "jobs" and "economic growth" and other mythical beings supposedly borne as if by magic just by burying in asphalt some of the best farm land in the country. don't get bogged down in rhetoric, don't allow di ianni to tie this issue to red hill and what is percieved as being "feel good politics".

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools