Quote:
Originally Posted by alecz_dad
However, it seems as though there is a blinkered view here that is impervious to any sort of questioning or reasonable arguments in opposition to OSEG's Lansdowne scheme, as it has been presented.
|
Yes, there are reasonable arguments against the OSEG plan. There are also reasonable arguments for the plan. The difference I see is that most of those arguing against the plan have a vested personal interest in the result, and have quickly become urban planning experts to campaign against the plan. On the other hand, many of those for the plan (the ones you cleverly label as "useful idiots") are genuine students of urban planning whose interest in the subject goes far beyond this project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alecz_dad
But instead it was plunked down in the cornfields of Kanata, in large part because it opened up the area around it to development by the Firestone Corp., including the building of an exit there, courtesy of the then quisling Mayor, Jim Durrell (who had to resign after trying to be Mayor and President of the Sens franchise. OOPS! Conflict, anyone?)
|
This claim is incorrect for a number of reasons. For one, the city didn't build the exit - that was largely funded by the Senators.
Quote:
|
I agree that the theory does state that congestion forces people to take other modes of transport. How about we start by putting a freeze on the hundreds of millions of dollars of road-widening planned throughout the City in the next few years? Then we could put that towards funding the stadium renovation and park building without going into debt and without having to give away a third of the site to private developers for $1 per year?
|
I have no problem with a freeze on road-widening, but I'd rather see the money put into transit enhancements and the OSEG deal left the way it is.
I do have a problem with half-truths about the site being given away to private developers. As several judges have pointed out to opponents, you can't cherry-pick one aspect of the deal to argue it is a give-away. People here aren't receptive to those arguments not because they are predisposed to one way of thinking, but rather because they are overly simplistic speaking points and when examined for even a few minutes, they don't hold water.
Looking at the balance of your arguments, almost all of them can be applied to any type of significant intensification in the Glebe. I have a problem with that line of argument. As a resident of the Glebe, I recognize that the Glebe needs to accept its share of intensification, and is ideally suited for it (walkable, well-serviced, close to downtown etc.). Lansdowne provides a great opportunity to achieve that. And that ill you speak of, private development by wealthy individuals, is going to be part of intensification.
I have little time for those who want to build a wall around the neighbourhood to protect it from any kind of development. And these parking and traffic arguments are the bread and butter of those espousing that viewpoint.
Threaded Mode