[All] "Under the Influence" re: OMB Forces Urban Sprawl on Waterloo Region
John Jackson
jjackson at web.ca
Sat Jan 26 13:00:22 EST 2013
I think our first step is to get a meeting with the Regional Planning people
to brief us to further explore the implications of this decision and how it
fits into the future OMB decisions, etc . I will e-mail the planning people
this weekend and follow up with a phone call on Tuesday if I haven¹t heard
back by then.
Daphne, you just mentioned CBC Radio. The new CBC radio station in downtown
Kitchener starts up on March 11. I am sure we want to do stuff before that,
but it is one additional useful outlet for us in the near future.
John
On 13-01-26 12:20 PM, "Daphne NICHOLLS" <gordanddaph at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I just listened CBC's Terry O'Reilly's "Under the Influence", (formerly The
> Age of Persuasion). The topic was (is) why radio is a survivor. I encourage
> you ttake 30 minutes to listen to it:
> www.cbc.ca/.../Radio/Under=the=Influence/
> <http://www.cbc.ca/.../Radio/Under=the=Influence/> . There might be an
> opportunity to rally local stations to broadcase some kind of message about
> the importance of firm urban boundaries. There were some wonderfully
> innovative ideas from around the world! Once we get the message from Regional
> Staff, we can make plans.
> Daphne
>
>
>
> From: deswid at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:24:15 -0500
> To: frind at uwaterloo.ca
> CC: franhatch at rogers.com; all at gren.ca; mefrind at uwaterloo.ca
> Subject: Re: [All] OMB Forces Urban Sprawl on Waterloo Region
>
> I agree with Emil. A show of force and some pressure at the provincial level
> is essential (maybe Catherine Fife could be an ally here).
>
> I'm not sure what can be done now that this decision has been made -- perhaps
> we should encourage the Region to take this further, and hope they can pull
> something together that will convince a higher court to hear the case.
>
> I do think this calls for a group meeting with Regional staff so that we
> clearly understand the implications of this decision, and the next steps.
>
> Deb Swidrovich
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Emil Frind <frind at uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I hope that folks understand the potential implications of this decision.
>> Although this is only an interim decision, it opens the foodgate to more
>> urban sprawl. Where would these 1000 ha come from? The worst possible outcome
>> for the Region would be the paving over of the primary Moraine recharge areas
>> just to the west of Wilmot Line. This could compromise the Moraine water
>> source in a major way.
>>
>> At present, the Region has been quite successful in managing our water
>> source, and with continuing water conservation and prudent management, a
>> pipeline might never be needed. But with the primary recharge choked off, our
>> groundwater could decline both in quantity and in quality. This would soon
>> force us into the pipeline option. 25 years ago, when the pipeline first came
>> up, its cost was estimated at 1/2 billion, now you can figure on a multiple
>> of that - probably well over a billion, maybe two. Who would pay? The
>> taxpayer of course. Believe me, compared to the cost of the pipeline, the LRT
>> is peanuts. There is also the quality issue - who would like to drink Lake
>> Erie water?
>>
>> It's ironic that on one hand, the Province encourages intensification by
>> paying for some of the LRT cost, but on the other hand it encourages urban
>> sprawl. Makes no sense. The Places-to-Grow Act was forced down our throats
>> without consideration of the limits of our local natural resources, and
>> without any serious attempt of community consultation (I was asked to
>> comment, but my comments were ignored). This is not democracy, it is
>> dictatorship.
>>
>> I did technical assessments for both Site 41 and the Melancthon megaquarry,
>> both times concluding that the site is not suitable for the purpose intended.
>> But in the end it was not technical arguments, but raw people power that
>> defeated these projects. So it looks like this is the way to go here as well.
>> Make the powers understand that this is not the will of the community. This
>> might be a good time to put some pressure on the candidates for political
>> office. The OMB Act needs an overhaul urgently.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Emil Frind.
>>
>>
>> Kevin Thomason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yvonne,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for the follow up and for seeking out additional information from
>>> all the right people.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would agree from reading the decision and trying to interpret all the
>>> information and opinions that indeed this is just an interim decision in a
>>> much longer, and complex three phase OMB hearing that will continue for some
>>> time yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The OMB has agreed with the Region on the types of land to be
>>> included/excluded but then agreed with the developers on the amount of urban
>>> boundary expansion needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is certainly no decisions, agreement or even attempts to figure out
>>> just where urban boundaries would/could be expanded to allow for this
>>> development to occur though loss of any greenspace is always a concern for
>>> us.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Only time may tell if there actually is need or demand for more urban sprawl
>>> type housing and who is right when currently most demand is being seen in
>>> our rapidly expanding core areas where people are seeking condos, lofts and
>>> town homes compared to the slowing sales of single family detached homes in
>>> the suburbs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately though the designation of rural lands for development and
>>> setting the expectation of development often dooms them to development
>>> regardless of need.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the dangers of this decision are that it is a disappointing
>>> setback for the Region's attempts at innovation and trying to do things
>>> better, it will embolden the developers to challenge the Region and area
>>> municipalities on more things, it again demonstrates the pro-development
>>> leanings of the OMB and how it takes the power away from local governments
>>> to make the decisions they feel are best for our local communities, and it
>>> seems crazy for the OMB to be encouraging sprawl and old fashioned,
>>> inefficient, destructive greenfield development at a time when so many
>>> levels of government are trying to implement more efficient and sustainable
>>> SMART growth initiatives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The developers are certainly seeing this as a huge win and they feel that it
>>> positions them very well for the next phase of the battle which will
>>> determine where and when the urban boundary expansion of between 80 and
>>> 1,053 hectares will occur. This is a powerful group with many lawyers and
>>> large law firms involved.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We do need to remain optimistic. This is one decision point with many more
>>> aspects and decisions in a much larger case. We still have a visionary,
>>> progressive Regional Official Plan with many other innovative elements than
>>> just land budgeting that we need to support and keep moving forward be it
>>> the rapid transit, countryside line, protected countryside, ESLs, water
>>> issues and dozens of other aspects.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The OMB and higher level governments can be swayed by strong, united public
>>> pressure. Just look to the recent mega-quarry decision for proof.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a lot that we can do over the coming months to support and
>>> encourage the Region and area governments to continue with SMART growth
>>> strategies and innovation. We should work to develop a plan to express our
>>> concerns about this decision with all levels of government and ensure that
>>> everyone is working towards leading solutions. We need to demonstrate
>>> strong support for the ROP and articulate the vision of the community that
>>> we want to see and live in over the coming decades.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to ensure that our future is determined by the people of our
>>> community working towards a better, sustainable community and world-leading
>>> place to live and not by a bunch of developers using the courts and deep
>>> pockets to force old style urban sprawl development over our remaining green
>>> space for their own profit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking into this Yvonne! Please everyone continue to share any
>>> knowledge, learning, and ideas.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kevin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013-01-24, at 10:57 PM, Yvonne Fernandes <fonka25 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello EVeryone,
>>>> I had a chance to speak with Ken Seiling today and his comments were that
>>>> this process is not yet complete and this is on half of the decision. I am
>>>> not sure if he was trying to save face or not.
>>>> I also email Kevin Eby who has been very involved in the hearings. His
>>>> comments were:" that this decision
>>>> is only interim decision that only spoke the potential quantum of land
>>>> required, not the location. In its decsion the Board accepted in part the
>>>> Region's position and in part the developers possition and instructed us to
>>>> get back together to work out the dtails as it applies to the calculation."
>>>> Again I am not sure if this is the "approved" response but I want to remain
>>>> a bit optimistic. I agree with Greg that PB is not to be trusted and that
>>>> he is dancing away at much of this decision and the media coverage that is
>>>> is getting.
>>>> I will keep you posted if I hear more or something different.
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yvonne Fernandes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,committed people can change
>>>> the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Follow your dreams of a better world, and keep on trying, even when there
>>>> seems to be little hope, because it is the right thing to do." Robert Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> > From: neiletaylor at sympatico.ca
>>>>> > To: gcmichalenko at uwaterloo.ca; kevinthomason at mac.com; all at gren.ca
>>>>> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:48:23 -0500
>>>>> > Subject: Re: [All] OMB Forces Urban Sprawl on Waterloo Region
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Greg
>>>>> > We agree once again.
>>>>> > Nei;
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> > From: All [mailto:all-bounces at gren.ca] On Behalf Of Gregory C.
>>>>> Michalenko
>>>>> > Sent: January-24-13 6:16 PM
>>>>> > To: Kevin Thomason; GREN
>>>>> > Subject: Re: [All] OMB Forces Urban Sprawl on Waterloo Region
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is truly horrible. We've got to expose these developers and the
>>>>> damage
>>>>> > thy have caused. Unfortunately I'm away untilFeb. 22.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > i remember battling Britton when he assisted Sun life in tearing down 20
>>>>> > affordable houses to expand their parking lot.There was a rumor
>>>>> circulating
>>>>> > that Habitat for Humanity had agreed to salvage the torn down houses. I
>>>>> met
>>>>> > with the national president (the office happens to be in Waterloo)and
>>>>> she
>>>>> > said "There is no truth to that. It would simply be unprofessional to
>>>>> make
>>>>> > such a decision on a hypothetical matter before any official decision
>>>>> had
>>>>> > been made and a demoliton permit granted." I was one of the first
>>>>> > delegations to speak at the critical Kitchener council meeting. When
>>>>> > Britton spoke he blatantly lied, said that Habitat would welcome the
>>>>> chance
>>>>> > to use the materials and the next delegation was a sincere naive dupe of
>>>>> > Habitat enthusiastically thanking Britton for the wonderful contribution
>>>>> > this would make to Habitat's good work. I had no chance to challenge B's
>>>>> > blatant lie or mention my meeting with the president or tell the poor
>>>>> worker
>>>>> > that he had been shamefully manipulated.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I despise him.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > - Keep up your good work Kevin. I remember how grateful the Kitchener
>>>>> > planners were when you spoke up in favour of the countryside line when
>>>>> it
>>>>> > was proposed.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > = Greg, Huatulco, Mexico
>>>>> > ________________________________________
>>>>> > From: All [all-bounces at gren.ca] on behalf of Kevin Thomason
>>>>> > [kevinthomason at mac.com]
>>>>> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:46 AM
>>>>> > To: GREN
>>>>> > Subject: [All] OMB Forces Urban Sprawl on Waterloo Region
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Good morning,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In a very disturbing ruling the OMB is rejecting the Region of
>>>>> Waterloo's
>>>>> > Regional Official Plan (ROP's) attempts to curb urban sprawl and is
>>>>> > demanding thousands of acres of greenspace be opened up for future
>>>>> > development:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/874617--provincial-tribunal-se>>>>>
ts
>>>>> > -back-region-s-efforts-to-curb-urban-sprawl
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It is a shameful ruling from a tribunal that shouldn't exist. Certain
>>>>> local
>>>>> > developers are thrilled by the decision and are declaring a huge
>>>>> victory.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Twitter is rampant this morning with anger from the public that our
>>>>> > progressive region which is leading the charge on intensification and
>>>>> better
>>>>> > land-use at the bequest of the province is now being forced by the same
>>>>> > provincial government to revert to old fashioned urban sprawl.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The Region is downplaying this decision and there is a closed door
>>>>> meeting
>>>>> > of Regional Councillors (in camera) on Tuesday to discuss the
>>>>> ramifications.
>>>>> > We will likely learn more over the coming days but it could be weeks or
>>>>> > months until we learn what greenspace is going to be redesignated and
>>>>> > targetted for future development to accommodate this ruling.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > As most OMB rulings are final and unappeallable (short of an overturn by
>>>>> the
>>>>> > Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing). I don't think there is much
>>>>> we
>>>>> > can do here other than to try to support the Region's other efforts on
>>>>> > growth management, public transit, water, environmental protection, etc.
>>>>> as
>>>>> > much as possible and still try to positively create the community we
>>>>> want to
>>>>> > live in.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Kevin.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -------------------------------------
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Kevin Thomason
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 1115 Cedar Grove Road
>>>>> > Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2J 3Z4
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Phone: (519) 888-0519
>>>>> > Mobile Phone: (519) 240-1648
>>>>> > Twitter: @kthomason
>>>>> > E-mail: kevinthomason at mac.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----------------------------------------
>>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> All mailing list
>>> All at gren.ca
>>> http://mail.gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> All mailing list
>> All at gren.ca
>> http://mail.gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ All mailing list All at gren.ca
> http://mail.gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> All mailing list
> All at gren.ca
> http://mail.gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
--
John Jackson
17 Major Street
Kitchener, Ontario N2H 4R1
519-744-7503
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20130126/10032e65/attachment.html>
More information about the All
mailing list