Comment 79526

By ViennaCafe (registered) | Posted July 17, 2012 at 20:40:44 in reply to Comment 79524

Here is what you said:

"Seems to me that what the protesters to the statement are missing is that he wasn't talking about an urban residential area but rather an urban commercial area almost completely devoid of opportunity to create open recreation spaces. I happen to agree that the particular intersection he was referring to is not suitable for raising children and its not possible to create the open recreation facilities kids need growing up there"

But let's deal with what you're saying now. If it is not safe for kids to cross streets, why do we build them? If the councillor is anything less than disingenuous in the argument you ascribe to him, then why has he consistently opposed making streets safer for pedestrians of all ages, bicycles, and transit users? Why is it, for example, he supports ripping out streetcars in order to allow cars to travel faster on city streets?

If the Connaught was to be redeveloped as a residential condominium complex then, yes, it should be mandated to provide housing for families. That is what councillors are supposed to do: direct development to ensure the livability and vitality of the city.

It is not unreasonable. And here is a newsflash for ya: children of all ages live in downtown neighbourhoods including Toronto and Hamilton.

Should we not provide them services and housing opportunities because of some suburban politician's elitist and short-sighted snobbery?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools