Comment 26076

By michaeld (registered) | Posted July 28, 2008 at 16:22:20


How about we just stick to the facts and here are some;

The city just completed a Historical Land Use Study and found over 4000 acres of "Sites of Interest". The need for the Greenfields around the airport are based upon projections which are already off target by about 10%. The consultant studies have no problem speculating how much land is needed but do not have an ability to model how much Brownfields can contribute to those needs. The whole purpose of conducting a "Land Budget" is to determine how much new land is required to meet the MMAH requirements as set out in the Provincial Policy Statement and the Places to Grow. The results of the study are heavily disputed by the province and on the very same day the studies were approved by council they also approved the reclassification of almost 200 acres of current industrial lands which is in flagrant violation of the PPS and P2G.

I don't think I am dismissing the airport lands but I am seriously questioning the magnitude of what is being considered in the absence of what is happening or not happening elsewhere.

If the taxpayers of this city are to once again be asked to invest heavily in yet another mega project I don't understand the confusion when serious questions are asked that demand serious answers.


Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools