[All] "Under the Influence" re: OMB Forces Urban Sprawl on Waterloo Region
jeff stager
shadynook at golden.net
Sat Jan 26 13:32:19 EST 2013
Hi
I host The Agriculture Show on CKMS radio (the old university station)
www.soundfm.ca
http://soundfm.ca/audio/by/genre/talk_agriculture
You are welcome to come in and do a show.
We can talk about what you are doing, and then in respect of the wishes
of the program sponsors we need to talk about how your interests
intersect with the interests of the primary producer.
jeff stager
On 1/26/2013 1:00 PM, John Jackson wrote:
> Re: [All] "Under the Influence" re: OMB Forces Urban Sprawl on
> Waterloo Region 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 haven't 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-sets
> > -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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> All mailing list
> All at gren.ca
> http://mail.gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20130126/c4c05a84/attachment.html>
More information about the All
mailing list