Quote:
Originally Posted by spaustin
In no way am I anti-development. Recall that I faced down an angry room to approve the eight storey residential option on this project and had a few choice four letters words hurled my way for my troubles. I think I'm probably one of the only Councillors who would do that in their own district. Most would have thrown good planning right out the window to pander. I didn't because something should be built here and well-designed mid-rise residential would be a great fit.
|
Thank you, Councillor, for your willingness to engage with residents on this project, with taxpayers generally, and with members of this forum. I wish more of our elected representatives were as open to communication.
I agree fundamentally with most of your positions. The approved 8-storey structure was a reasonable compromise that you worked very hard for after seven years of debate. But, as we know, the result of compromise is very often that no one walks away satisfied. Why the development group decided to toss it all and revert to the structure they could have built years before is beyond me, but its fair to speculate that after showing willingness to compromise for years, faced with yet another appeal, they finally decided enough was enough.
I'm finding it hard to blame them for that. And I suspect there are more that feel that way than you appreciate. That's why the attempt by you and others to paint the developers as the unethical bad guys, for playing the lousy cards they were legally dealt, is grossly unfair in my opinion.
You've made the case that their hotel project would be great, if only it was somewhere else. The statement's disingenuous, as I think you know. It would make no difference where in this city this project was proposed. Some vocal minority would find a reason to oppose it, and some councillor, some journalist or some advocate would be ready to rush to their side. And the dance would begin again.