Quote:
Originally Posted by Riberview
In regards to the Eastgate development..
I for one find it difficult to understand what's happening behind closed doors. Staff and the mayor are dead set against any development North of the TCH on Elmwood. This is bizarre to me, as the developments proposed are quite a distance from the municipal boundary.
I get they want density before more sprawl. I personally would prefer to live NOT in city centre, but be a 6 min drive from same.
Fix the problems plaguing the core, before you insist all development be in the core.
The City allowed Granite Drive to happen, North of the TCH.. The Province moved a high school there. The City put a fire station north of the highway..
Elmwood Drive was upgraded to the high-school. Are you telling me they rebuilt the sewer and all, ONLY to accommodate current builds?
Whose fault is that then?
Short sightedness is a funny thing, especially when you've got oodles of "master plans" kicking around..
Don't even get me started on this new pivot for Vision Lands. Insist on development here but when it falls through, insist it be a federal park?! So we can't build in the literal centre of the city.. and we can't build where all these new businesses are going..
Make up your mind, or hire planners who can actually plan shit.
/endrant
|
I assume landowners such as those of the Vision Lands make investments based on city policies and planning. Namely, paying higher costs for land and taxes as one would expect in areas slated for future development. Allowing random projects to proceed outside the municipal boundary and deviating from established planning is poor governance. It is going to cost the tax payer dearly not to mention the negative environmental impacts of adding unnecessary infrastructure and emissions (thousands of cars traveling 10kms outside the municipal boundary daily with no public transit). Beyond considering a project outside of the municipal boundary, why is council suggesting 50% park land for Vision Land owners and not the same demands are being made of Eastgate or the Vineyard? There appears to be little to no green space on their plans, which further supports the nonsensical consideration of allowing these developments to occur outside the municipal boundary. It seems crazy to me that you have private land owners in both cases, but the ones who are actually within the boundary are being held to a higher standard? Council should listen to their professional planners and abide by sound municipal planning.