0
Retaining our urban forest, for a little while anyway
15 August 2010
The mayor, who has in the past professed to be environmentally conscientious, was one of the very few who voted to clear-cut a 42-acre section of land in the west end, Monday. That recommendation was defeated, but it deserves comment.
How wiping out a large area of our already-stressed urban forest, destroying an environment used by urban wildlife and is a nesting ground for migratory birds, and chopping down trees that keep our air clean and our town cool squares with any environmental stance escapes me. But I've never been able to reconcile the mayor's contradictions in the past, so this vote was no different in that.
The land was part of the parcel he and a majority of council previously approved for development of 400-500,000 sq. feet of commercial development (aka "mall sprawl") based on the recommendations of a consultant's report that said Collingwood - despite being already overly-rich in retail space - could easily absorb. I wrote about this proposal here, here and here and analyzed the numbers here.
As I see the numbers and the proposals, this sort of mall development will only further hurt the downtown and can't be sustained by our current population or projected growth. But I was in the minority opinion here (and, as far as I can tell, the only one who actually ran the numbers through a spreadsheet to try and justify the conclusions).
Perhaps I lack a certain sympathy towards the developers' goals to pave and build that part of town into a Brampton- or Barrie-like clone. Something in my nature wants to retain some small-town atmosphere.
For the same reason, I have consistently resisted the mayor's efforts to get a west-end secondary plan created, which would bascially allow uncontrolled residential growth in that area. He's keen to see all that land become single-family, large-scale sprawl. I'm not. Nor am I willing to make the taxpayers pay for that study - at least $250,000 - which would benefit the developers, but not the residents (much like his $428,000 lost battle against educational development charges).
While staff have the discretion to provide a tree-cutting permit in this situation, they wisely decided that this should be a council (political) decision. After all, we have all sorts of new policies and documents in place, from sustainability to Urban Design Standards. I've also been pushing for a bylaw/policy regarding our boulevard trees and urban forest for several years.
We simply cannot keep destroying our natural environment and green spaces without hurting our community.
Many people use that space when walking or riding the trails. It is, yes, private property, but right now the community enjoys access to this large, undeveloped, natural space, and it provides home to a lot of urban wildlife.
Council, however, has approved turning that green space into a chunk of urban sprawl with big-box stores and franchise outlets, and chopping down all the trees. Dreary as its future may be, for now people seem to like it as it is.
Staff, I should note, recommended the clear-cutting in the agenda report. That worried me, because it strikes me as out of synch with some of council's other objectives for a walkable, sustainable, environmentally-engaged community. I have always hoped staff would be more actively protective of our green spaces and resist such clear-cutting until there were at least some definite plans for the development, and not allow it to happen several years prior to any other planning approvals
The first thing that concerned me when I read the report was that this was very, very premature. While the majority of council previously supported turning a large green space into a cookie-cutter mall-sprawl, the actual development and building is many years down the road. No one on staff or council has even seen a debate-able plan for the development, let alone do we have an approved site plan or landscaping plan for it. Why clear cut it so far in advance of those approvals?
Cutting down those trees now is unnecessarily hostile to our community environment. There was no justification in the staff report for doing so now, years ahead of any building, aside from the desires of the developers to have an empty lot at their disposal. is that in the community's best interests?
I reminded council about the same issue we had with the proposed condo development on High Street (south of Mountainview School). In that case, the majority of council (not me) allowed the developer to cut down a well-established green space with some very old trees (it had been a nice buffer zone for neighbours and a popular area for kids to play) long before any building will ever take place. As a result we lost a sizable piece of urban forest and gained a large, tree-less mud field, with development of the condos still in the nebulous future. I ask you: was that wise?
Are we better served by a muddy field than a treed lot?
Fortunately for the community, the majority of council agreed with me this time. Sadly, the mayor and two other members of council (Councillor Labelle and Deputy Mayor Cooper) voted in favour of clear-cutting this property Monday. I am not privy to their reasons for doing so, not can I understand how destroying green space years ahead of any possible development makes political or environmental sense.
How wiping out a large area of our already-stressed urban forest, destroying an environment used by urban wildlife and is a nesting ground for migratory birds, and chopping down trees that keep our air clean and our town cool squares with any environmental stance escapes me. But I've never been able to reconcile the mayor's contradictions in the past, so this vote was no different in that.
The land was part of the parcel he and a majority of council previously approved for development of 400-500,000 sq. feet of commercial development (aka "mall sprawl") based on the recommendations of a consultant's report that said Collingwood - despite being already overly-rich in retail space - could easily absorb. I wrote about this proposal here, here and here and analyzed the numbers here.
As I see the numbers and the proposals, this sort of mall development will only further hurt the downtown and can't be sustained by our current population or projected growth. But I was in the minority opinion here (and, as far as I can tell, the only one who actually ran the numbers through a spreadsheet to try and justify the conclusions).
Perhaps I lack a certain sympathy towards the developers' goals to pave and build that part of town into a Brampton- or Barrie-like clone. Something in my nature wants to retain some small-town atmosphere.
For the same reason, I have consistently resisted the mayor's efforts to get a west-end secondary plan created, which would bascially allow uncontrolled residential growth in that area. He's keen to see all that land become single-family, large-scale sprawl. I'm not. Nor am I willing to make the taxpayers pay for that study - at least $250,000 - which would benefit the developers, but not the residents (much like his $428,000 lost battle against educational development charges).
While staff have the discretion to provide a tree-cutting permit in this situation, they wisely decided that this should be a council (political) decision. After all, we have all sorts of new policies and documents in place, from sustainability to Urban Design Standards. I've also been pushing for a bylaw/policy regarding our boulevard trees and urban forest for several years.
We simply cannot keep destroying our natural environment and green spaces without hurting our community.
Many people use that space when walking or riding the trails. It is, yes, private property, but right now the community enjoys access to this large, undeveloped, natural space, and it provides home to a lot of urban wildlife.
Council, however, has approved turning that green space into a chunk of urban sprawl with big-box stores and franchise outlets, and chopping down all the trees. Dreary as its future may be, for now people seem to like it as it is.
Staff, I should note, recommended the clear-cutting in the agenda report. That worried me, because it strikes me as out of synch with some of council's other objectives for a walkable, sustainable, environmentally-engaged community. I have always hoped staff would be more actively protective of our green spaces and resist such clear-cutting until there were at least some definite plans for the development, and not allow it to happen several years prior to any other planning approvals
The first thing that concerned me when I read the report was that this was very, very premature. While the majority of council previously supported turning a large green space into a cookie-cutter mall-sprawl, the actual development and building is many years down the road. No one on staff or council has even seen a debate-able plan for the development, let alone do we have an approved site plan or landscaping plan for it. Why clear cut it so far in advance of those approvals?
Cutting down those trees now is unnecessarily hostile to our community environment. There was no justification in the staff report for doing so now, years ahead of any building, aside from the desires of the developers to have an empty lot at their disposal. is that in the community's best interests?
I reminded council about the same issue we had with the proposed condo development on High Street (south of Mountainview School). In that case, the majority of council (not me) allowed the developer to cut down a well-established green space with some very old trees (it had been a nice buffer zone for neighbours and a popular area for kids to play) long before any building will ever take place. As a result we lost a sizable piece of urban forest and gained a large, tree-less mud field, with development of the condos still in the nebulous future. I ask you: was that wise?
Are we better served by a muddy field than a treed lot?
Fortunately for the community, the majority of council agreed with me this time. Sadly, the mayor and two other members of council (Councillor Labelle and Deputy Mayor Cooper) voted in favour of clear-cutting this property Monday. I am not privy to their reasons for doing so, not can I understand how destroying green space years ahead of any possible development makes political or environmental sense.
