From time to time, although I prefer to
go by train, I drive to Toronto or Windsor, and when I do, I do so
for a specific reason: a meeting, a conference, an opera performance.
I take the train when travelling alone providing that VIA's schedule
fits my needs. Otherwise I drive. I want to get to my destination as
quickly as I can with the least amount of hassle, stress and delay.
As well, I usually take the 403 to Toronto if my destination is
downtown. It's a more relaxing drive with lots of trees and other
vegetation and few commercial distractions or trucks.
I suspect I'm not alone in
this preference. People take the 400 series highways in order to get where they
want to go fast. It's not a Sunday afternoon drive as a recreational diversion.
But apparently that's not
how some members of council see it. About half of them, and a majority of the
planning committee, see nothing but dollar signs in the headlights of the cars
and trucks barrelling down the 401 at Wellington Road. Sixty thousand of them
per day, according to planning committee chair Bud Polhill. All of them just
looking for a diversion, a reason to get off the 401 and into London.
And what would that
diversion be? A shopping centre, of course. With a beer store and a cinema for
the latest movie releases. What could be more perfect? And after the movie and
picking up a two-four, surely they'll be tempted to venture further north along
Wellington Road, maybe right into downtown and ending up at city hall where
they can catch the latest episode of Fontana's Folly.
It was more than two years
ago when the mayor first dropped hints about the proposal from PenEquity Realty
Corp. It was going to be “an incredible signature piece”, he proclaimed back in
April of 2011. The mayor finds many things “incredible”. Increasingly, so does
the public.
And PenEquity president
David Johnston agreed. “We will provide something unique, something different
to draw people from Waterloo, Woodstock, Sarnia and Windsor. It will be
exciting," he told the Free Press's Norman DeBono the following month.
And indeed, two years later
some members of council are excited about the prospects of a shopping mall with
600,000 square feet of big box stores, restaurant chains and movie theatres.
Add a gas bar—that's what will really pull in the crowds—and a hotel for those
who stay for the late show, and what's not to love?
But there's a little hitch
in the works. In the middle of the 76 acre property to be developed is a
woodland of about 10,000 trees which had previously not been evaluated as to
its significance. It's what is known as an “unevaluated vegetation patch”.
Turns out, it is significant since it contains rare and threatened species of
flora and fauna. In fact, it scored “high” on five of the eight criteria used
to assess the significance of natural heritage features when only one “high”
would be sufficient to rate that designation. Natural heritage features are
protected by the Provincial Policy Statement; local councils can't just ignore
that.
Then it turns out that
inside this woodland is a wetland which filters and stores water as well as
providing a habitat for birds and animals. It functions to deal with the
increasing number of sudden storms we are experiencing and protect against
flooding. Apparently no one on the planning committee raised that issue but
wetlands are regulated by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
(UTRCA). It sent a letter to council advising it that it would not give its
approval for the development if the wetland were to be drained.
Apparently none of these
objections carried much weight with those who saw nothing but the economic
renewal of London coming out of the PenEquity application.
The mayor was dismissive. He
didn't want passersby saying “Look at that unique woodlot. That's London,” when
they could be looking at an “incredible development”. When chided by Paul
Hubert for being sarcastic, he responded, “I can be sarcastic. I can be
anything I want.”
And there's the rub. Not
only was the mayor deriding the value of natural heritage, but his choice of
words betrayed his ignorance of environmental stewardship. “Woodlots” are
stands of trees managed for commercial purposes for fuel or building materials
or Christmas trees. “Woodlands” are natural heritage features and we have been
treating them as woodlots or nuisances far too long. The loss of woodlands has
resulted in more pollution, reduction in diversity of species, and increased
land erosion and higher summer temperatures, not to mention the loss of beauty
and recreation. I remember well the many Sundays when my father would take us
kids for a walk in the woods, pointing out all the birds and animals and plants
and teaching us their names.
But for our mayor they are
just a barrier to development. And the wood could possibly bring in a little
bit of income. Besides, the developer had offered to plant a few replacement
trees, not as many as he would cut down, and not nearly as big, of course, but
hey, he could even plant them in places where trees had been lost to the
emerald ash borer. And eventually they would grow.
Stephen Orser was even more
disdainful, referring to the significant heritage feature as a “vegetable
patch”. Likewise, Paul VanMeeerbergen saw the situation as “some woods and some
brush to be removed.” And Dale Henderson pointed out that the developer was
prepared to spend $100 million; he wouldn't be interested in talking with
groups who wanted to talk about birds, he would want to talk to businessmen,
yes businessmen who, unlike politicians, “don't talk for ten minutes and say
nothing.” Well, he should know.
They, along with others,
wanted to get on with it. After all, as the mayor had pointed out, there were
1,200 jobs at stake in a city with an unemployment rate of 9.8%. And he, who
had promised 10,000 net new jobs over his term of office, couldn't afford to
wait. Plus, three to four million dollars in taxes! Maybe the jobs were not
quite like the 15,000 manufacturing jobs that had been lost over the past few
years, and some people were saying that these weren't important jobs, but were
they telling the people who hold these jobs that they are not important,
Fontana wanted to know.
Not exactly, although Sandy
White accused (falsely, I may add) Paul Hubert of having said something like
that way back when he was describing his “Hire One” initiative. Why she felt a
need to do so is anyone's guess. Perhaps it was Hubert's turn to be mocked or
chided; perhaps she simply didn't understand the report but, having supported
ignoring the staff recommendation to protect the woodland, felt a need to say
something. In any case, she had received an email from someone who had been
looking for a job and finally found one in a pizza place. He was, she said,
“Happy. Happy. Happy.Happy. Happy.” I lost count.
Bill Armstrong, too, managed
to overcome his concerns about the environment although, he pointed out, he is
usually thought of as “a tree hugger.” But what are 10,000 trees compared to
the need for jobs he sees in his work everyday, serving eviction notices.
People are desperate. He agreed with Orser who had waxed poetic over the misery
and tears he had witnessed while delivering the fridge magnets obtained at
taxpayer expense to his voters.
As for Orser himself, he had
held down minimum wage jobs washing dishes or worse, driving cab, but
eventually he had created a small business and today he was a COUNCILLOR. Not
full time, but a councillor nonetheless.
But the promise of thousands
of jobs were of little comfort for those who sought protection for the
woodland.
Harold Usher started it off.
He wasn't satisfied that the trees had to be sacrificed. Staff had recommended
against it after reviewing the consultants' reports. He wanted the matter to be
referred back to staff for further discussions with the developer to find a way
to allow the development without taking out the woodland.
It was a position shared by
Hubert and Joni Baechler. Hubert didn't like the polarization he saw occurring.
Besides, previous staff reports had indicated that the city already had too
much retail space available. Would the jobs simply relocate? Would there be a
net increase?
For Baechler, jobs or the
environment was a false dichotomy. If we want to attract youth and keep them
here, we have to have a robust natural heritage system. That's what people
want. Look at Kitchener-Waterloo, the protection it gave to natural heritage.
Besides, Baechler chairs the UTRCA. It regulates the wetlands and there's no
way it will approve draining it. Why hadn't the committee discussed that?
Probably because Baechler no
longer sits on the planning committee although she had wanted to and had
offered to chair it. But foolish, self-interested heads prevailed when
committee appointments were being made and the committee lost its most
intelligent and experienced voice. Who else would know that London has 178
stormwater management ponds constructed at a cost of $1M apiece? And here we go
draining wetlands which perform the same function for free?
Perhaps Nancy Branscombe, but
she had missed the meeting. Still, she was skeptical of the jobs claims for
retail. She too wanted to be more like Kitchener-Waterloo which has dubbed
itself "the intelligent city."
“Retail follows
wealth-creation jobs,” she pointed out. “We are doing it backwards.” As far as
she was concerned, big box developments were a dime a dozen along the 401.
Nothing unique about them. Seen one, you've seen them all.
Those were Judy Bryant's
sentiments, too. London has only 8% woodland coverage, she noted, when we
should be aiming for 30%. But if they saved the woodland, “It could be a
spectacular development.”
Perhaps the most compelling
argument came from Denise Brown who continues to distance herself from the
Fontana 8. She had canvassed the businesses along Wellington Road to the north.
Not one of them was in support of the development. It would simply mean moving
jobs from the north to the south. There wouldn't be any net new jobs. It would
mean the closing of nearby stores and restaurants. After all, there are only so
many retail dollars available in the city. Look at all the businesses that had
gone belly-up over the past few years and decades. Look at what had happened to
Westmount Mall. Look at all the empty retail spaces. Look at what had happened
downtown.
Indeed. Look at the
announcement from Rona a few days later that it would be closing its Summerside
store.
Listening to the debate, I
was convinced that council would plough ahead, natural heritage be damned.
Fontana was tired; it had
been going on for hours and the debate wasn't getting anywhere. Apparently he
too thought he had the vote. He called the question on the referral.
The city clerk announced the
results. The motion passed 8 to 7.
I couldn't believe it. Based
on their speeches, Baechler, Branscombe, Matt Brown, Hubert, Usher and Denise
Brown should have voted yes on the referral; that was only seven. Who was the
eighth? I couldn't read the screen before the results disappeared.
The answer came by way of
Twitter. Sandy White had voted yes.
I could be wrong, but all
indications are that she had gotten confused and thought she was voting on
giving the development the green light. Instead, she supported sending it back
to staff to work with the developer to protect the woodland.
She's not the first person
to have voted in error. It happens.
In this case, it was an
error that protected 10,000 trees for another month.
Congratulations, Councillor
White. It's something to put on your pamphlet when you seek re-election.
As for development along the
401, on my way back from Toronto, I take the 402 to Wonderland Road and the
back roads home to Byron. There are lots of trees and little commercial. It's
very restful.
Unfortunately, that too is
changing.
10 comments:
I think Coun. Sandy White voted for the referral because she was yanked Mayor Joe put Bill Armstrong in the mayor's chair temporarily as a reward for his supporting the development.
She wanted that seat.
Notice how Mayor Joe quickly gave it to her shortly after the vote during another agenda item? He learned his lesson at the hands of Sandbox Sandy.
Just like grade school.
Your clarifications are so much appreciated, Gina! Trees, Please! Poets read their poems on http://chrwradio.ca/content/trees-please-gathering-voices-july-16th, to save the London woodland. From the pamphlet, “Trees or Jobs: It Should Not Be a Dichotomy”. With an intro. by Joni Baechler, Councillor. She writes: "I am so pleased that London poets have come together in a creative, collaborative project with the goal of protecting our natural environment. Heartwarming to my creative soul." MP Irene Mathyssen writes: "When all the empty strip malls are falling down, we will still be missing our beautiful lost trees." The poems are up on http://www.scribd.com/doc/150431112/Trees-or-Jobs.
Excellent post. Thank you for the effort put into this blog.
Given that during the summer gasoline prices consistently escalate, and given that we are at peak oil, or beyond it, wouldn't is seem to be logical to consider rethinking London so as to emulate the spirit of Paris, France where there are many little areas of commercial interest within the city. In each of these perhaps there are the necessities of living, you know baker, butcher, hardware seller, well you get the picture. Of course, Paris has a concept of public transit with the Metro yet unperceived in most of this country, although some cities are approaching it. Also it still may be in effect, the rule that one should not build over five stories. Every time I dip into Sinclair Lewis' Babbit, I cannot imagine that we have not yet reached the conclusions of authors of almost a century ago.
The Jobs or the Environment approch is such a ruse. What is the point of having Jobs if we have no environment. Council really needs to moderize it's thinking to include the need for both being important. Everything that Joe wants is not gold or does it smell like it. We now have an opportunity timewise to consider other lands if development is to proceed.
We do not need more retail spaces, we have plenty as it is. Oh and how would Joe get me to work? Is he going to stop by my house and drive me there? Buses do not go to the 401 area reliably nor frequently enough to support this crazy mall. He promised to brown fill and he LIED. It is getting to the point where I am beginning to think that he is going to make money off the deal. After all why push so hard for nothing.
Isn't White Oaks supposed to be the 401/402 shopping destination? Didn't there used to busloads of shoppers come to the mall? Why isn't council looking to support that retail area, or will they rob Peter to pay Paul?
Just call me confused.
The staff recommendation was actually to do both, protect the woods and wetland, and allow development. However, the proponent couldn't be bothered to agree to a creative solution and create an amenity in their retail development that would have been unique.
And I gotten wonder like you Gina, how many travellers actually have a sudden impulse to get off the highway and go shopping at a mall?
The decision to approve the mall and destroy the woods and wetlands represents a new benchmark of stupidity from the Honorable Fontana and his cabal.Everything is wrong with this development.Every principle of planning, economics, and civic stewardship has been completely ignored.
But for our mayor (the trees) are just a barrier to development...Stephen Orser was even more disdainful, referring to (it) as a “vegetable patch”. Likewise, Paul VanMeeerbergen saw the situation as “some woods & brush to be removed.” And Dale Henderson pointed out that the developer was prepared to spend $100 million...he would (only) want to talk to businessmen
An excellent summation of what much of Council "thinks" on most matters. I still can't believe you lost to one of them.
To be blunt, half the folks on council are complete imbeciles and/or for sale to the highest bidder. Dollar signs fill their eyes and prevents their brains from functioning. In their lust for "progress" they keep London decades behind and headed full speed in the wrong direction. This is yet another example.
In London; if it's old, it needs to be torn down. If it's natural, it needs to be killed. Even if it is ultimately replaced with just a parking lot or even nothing: (See: Brunswick House, The Embassy, etc, etc) it's still "better" than what was there.
Post a Comment