Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere
Urban Boundary expansion is the only reasonable "trade off" I really see on that list which would make political sense. To be clear - not greenbelt, just urban boundary.
I don't know if council would be willing to make that trade either, to be honest. They have dug their heels in so deep on that issue that it will be hard for them to pull out politically. Which is a shame, because giving the province the originally recommended small urban boundary expansion in exchange for the parkways would be a win-win-win for everyone.
|
Can't help but think that if the Province came with the agreement, the city would have an offer "too good to refuse" to justify it (even if it's what they all wanted anyway). If we could only articulate to the public that the cost of sprawl we have been fighting against is literally embedded in those highways. Thus we are making it "not our problem" while concerning ourselves with how we grow on the boundary. The province thus gets its piece of the cake with our UB expansion (and the MTO gets the highways, which for an organization like themselves I think is actually a benefit, but I digress...) and the city gets a (*relatively*) huge financial burden off its back.
There is probably a good way to do this, however, that doesn't require council to compromise their tenures. Perhaps the city and province form an agreement concerning the previously imposed boundary expansion. First, the province gains influence/discretion or control over development there; "you can do that if you want, but only if you take the major cost over from us". Or, the city retains control but must expand into those lands/designate them for development by 2031/20xx; "We'll do it, and in a reasonable time frame, but when we see fit".
Prev
Linear Mode
