0
Saving the Silver Creek Wetlands
08 October 2010
This week's news release about the Silver Creek Wetlands is a good news item, albeit a trifle vague, but with a bit of political wrangling on the side to make it interesting to political followers.
Saving the wetlands - or at least the environmentally-protected portion of it - has been a goal of the last two terms of council, but has been on the agenda of some members of council for longer. That we managed to accomplish this much is a credit to their tenacity.
In reality, something this significant should have been expropriated by the province years ago and protected from development. But the province has shrugged it off and left it up to us to try and save the last remaining undeveloped wetlands on Georgian Bay. Well, after several years we have done that - sort of. We may get a large part of the land deemed undevelopable because it was classified as "environmentally protected."
Don't be fooled into thinking that no development can occur there, however. There could be large subdivisions built on the other parts, some areas perilously close to sensitive EP areas, and others actually surrounded by EP lands (which begs the question of access, but that's another issue...).
I've pushed for the town to fully expropriate the property for two terms (that was passed as a bylaw in 2005), but the cost has simply been too high for the town to afford (valued at several millions of dollars, at least on paper). The legal costs to challenge that value over expropriation would also be quite high. So instead the strategy became one of accommodation and compromise.
But it hasn't been easy. In essence, the town wanted the EP lands in exchange for allowing some development. The value of the property depends on the developable portion. The more land that can be built on, the higher the value (important when securing financing). Understandably, developers are loathe to donate land if they perceive it as usable or valuable to their bottom line.
Originally, the area was slated to be a golf course - imagine the impact of the pesticide runoff on the remaining EP area! The council of the day (2002) managed to get that stopped, and when the developer's challenge against the town was lost at the Ontario Municipal Board (2003), the property owners changed their strategy and pushed for a series of residential developments, including large subdivisions on the property. In response, the town announced in 2005 and again in 2008 its decision to continue with expropriation. The developers reacted predictably with further challenges at the OMB.
You can read some of the history on mycollingwood.ca and on the BMWTF website.
The rising costs of legal bills to defend the town's position, and the potentially high cost of expropriation itself, made council take the road towards accommodation where some development would be permitted in exchange for deeding the remainder (the EP lands) to the town.
While this may be fiscally more sound, I have never personally supported this compromise in large part because I think any development in that area will have a negative impact on the wetlands. And I have never and will never support any access to landlocked property across EP lands, should that be proposed.
The more land that can be developed, the more people who live, play and work on the wetlands fringe. And that means more people who will eventually wander into the wetlands and interact with it - and whether they do so in an environmentally and ecologically friendly way or not (perhaps on dirt bikes, ATVs or snowmobiles) is impossible to predict or enforce. But the chances that there will be negative impacts from nearby development is high. Even people walking through breeding and spawning areas can negatively affect the wildlife.
Runoff from lawns, driveways and streets, pollution from automobiles, waste blown from garbage bins or streets - all will find its way into the EP areas very quickly. Wildlife will be killed on subdivision streets that intersect natural migration and forage paths. Noises from homes (especially during construction) will startle and scare wildlife, possibly forcing them to flee the area. Pesticides used against mosquitoes and other insects will get into the environment and affect birds, fish and amphibians. Street lights will disorient bats and other nocturnal creatures.
How can we protect the EP lands from the impact of hundreds of cars, homes and residents (potentially thousands)living only a block away from EP zone? We can't. Any development will have a negative - and potentially disastrous - impact on the natural environment. The only way to limit that effect and to preserve the wetlands is to limit development. Period.
The discussions to date have all been behind closed doors because of all sorts of legal matters and the "purchase of municipal property." I believe a good part of it could have been held in public so residents could hear about our strategy to protect what we could (and possibly even have some public input into whether the accommodation strategy was a wise one). But the doors remained closed.
At 9:16 a.m., Tuesday, the mayor sent an email to council that we had a "go ahead" about the wetlands and, "The announcement will be at 11:30am (sic) this morning in order to facilitate noon news broadcasts."
Those of us who read their council email before 9:16 a.m. and not again until later missed the opportunity to attend. I confirmed two of us weren't called to see if we could attend (I don't know about the rest). Great communication strategy, eh?
The press release was not included in the email to council, either, and I had to request it so I could answer questions from residents about the announcement. It arrived 24 hours after the first email. Here's what it says:
You might ask yourself a couple of questions after reading that.
First, about the timing. What was the urgency of this that a press conference had to be called on short notice, and why wasn't it timed so all members of council could attend? Why couldn't it have waited until the next council meeting to announce it?
Second, does the announcement actually say anything concrete? What does "one step closer to being protected and in public hands" mean? It seems that the real story won't emerge until some vague time in the "coming weeks" when something is actually signed. After the election, perhaps? What, then, was Tuesday's announcement really about?
Finally, about the wording. The article in the Enterprise Bulletin notes, "This morning, Mayor Chris Carrier announced a deal had been struck with the land owner for more than 190 acres — and if all goes well, it shouldn't cost the municipality a cent."
If all goes well? So maybe something can still go wrong? Shouldn't cost the municipality a cent. Shouldn't is not won't. That suggest it might, after all cost us something (certainly there are legal costs attached to it!).
Is it actually a deal or just a verbal comment? It strikes me there's really nothing to announce yet, because as the paper notes there's nothing signed: "All that remains, said Carrier, is for the "i's to be dotted and the t's to be crossed"; the matter is still before the Ontario Municipal Board for a mediated settlement."
So why not wait until everything is signed, the OMB has agreed to the settlement and we're sure nothing can interfere with taking ownership?
This was all in the mayor's hands. Council was not invited co comment on whether this announcement was timely or premature. We weren't shown the press release before it was released, let alone asked to comment on it. Nor has council actually seen any agreement, heard from our lawyer, nor from "those who currently control the property" as to the exact nature or wording of this "agreement."
Had I been asked, I would have suggested the timing is not merely premature, but a trifle suspicious.*
But it will be good news, once it gets signed and formalized. And for all his cagey machinations in other areas, to his credit the mayor has been supportive of getting these lands into public hands. I just think it would have been better news had we waited until we had something formal to present, and not have any uncertainty about the agreement cloud it.
~~~~~
* Could this be (gasp!) a political announcement to make someone's political legacy look better than just a four-year-old water-filled hole on the main street suggests? Or perhaps it was timed to give a lift to the campaigns of some favoured incumbents whose showing in the polls has been sagging? Or am I just thinking too cynically and Machiavellian? I have been accused of being too negative, I allow. Probably a result of too many years spent in the media.
Saving the wetlands - or at least the environmentally-protected portion of it - has been a goal of the last two terms of council, but has been on the agenda of some members of council for longer. That we managed to accomplish this much is a credit to their tenacity.
In reality, something this significant should have been expropriated by the province years ago and protected from development. But the province has shrugged it off and left it up to us to try and save the last remaining undeveloped wetlands on Georgian Bay. Well, after several years we have done that - sort of. We may get a large part of the land deemed undevelopable because it was classified as "environmentally protected."
Don't be fooled into thinking that no development can occur there, however. There could be large subdivisions built on the other parts, some areas perilously close to sensitive EP areas, and others actually surrounded by EP lands (which begs the question of access, but that's another issue...).
I've pushed for the town to fully expropriate the property for two terms (that was passed as a bylaw in 2005), but the cost has simply been too high for the town to afford (valued at several millions of dollars, at least on paper). The legal costs to challenge that value over expropriation would also be quite high. So instead the strategy became one of accommodation and compromise.
But it hasn't been easy. In essence, the town wanted the EP lands in exchange for allowing some development. The value of the property depends on the developable portion. The more land that can be built on, the higher the value (important when securing financing). Understandably, developers are loathe to donate land if they perceive it as usable or valuable to their bottom line.
Originally, the area was slated to be a golf course - imagine the impact of the pesticide runoff on the remaining EP area! The council of the day (2002) managed to get that stopped, and when the developer's challenge against the town was lost at the Ontario Municipal Board (2003), the property owners changed their strategy and pushed for a series of residential developments, including large subdivisions on the property. In response, the town announced in 2005 and again in 2008 its decision to continue with expropriation. The developers reacted predictably with further challenges at the OMB.
You can read some of the history on mycollingwood.ca and on the BMWTF website.
The rising costs of legal bills to defend the town's position, and the potentially high cost of expropriation itself, made council take the road towards accommodation where some development would be permitted in exchange for deeding the remainder (the EP lands) to the town.
While this may be fiscally more sound, I have never personally supported this compromise in large part because I think any development in that area will have a negative impact on the wetlands. And I have never and will never support any access to landlocked property across EP lands, should that be proposed.
The more land that can be developed, the more people who live, play and work on the wetlands fringe. And that means more people who will eventually wander into the wetlands and interact with it - and whether they do so in an environmentally and ecologically friendly way or not (perhaps on dirt bikes, ATVs or snowmobiles) is impossible to predict or enforce. But the chances that there will be negative impacts from nearby development is high. Even people walking through breeding and spawning areas can negatively affect the wildlife.
Runoff from lawns, driveways and streets, pollution from automobiles, waste blown from garbage bins or streets - all will find its way into the EP areas very quickly. Wildlife will be killed on subdivision streets that intersect natural migration and forage paths. Noises from homes (especially during construction) will startle and scare wildlife, possibly forcing them to flee the area. Pesticides used against mosquitoes and other insects will get into the environment and affect birds, fish and amphibians. Street lights will disorient bats and other nocturnal creatures.
How can we protect the EP lands from the impact of hundreds of cars, homes and residents (potentially thousands)living only a block away from EP zone? We can't. Any development will have a negative - and potentially disastrous - impact on the natural environment. The only way to limit that effect and to preserve the wetlands is to limit development. Period.
The discussions to date have all been behind closed doors because of all sorts of legal matters and the "purchase of municipal property." I believe a good part of it could have been held in public so residents could hear about our strategy to protect what we could (and possibly even have some public input into whether the accommodation strategy was a wise one). But the doors remained closed.
At 9:16 a.m., Tuesday, the mayor sent an email to council that we had a "go ahead" about the wetlands and, "The announcement will be at 11:30am (sic) this morning in order to facilitate noon news broadcasts."
Those of us who read their council email before 9:16 a.m. and not again until later missed the opportunity to attend. I confirmed two of us weren't called to see if we could attend (I don't know about the rest). Great communication strategy, eh?
The press release was not included in the email to council, either, and I had to request it so I could answer questions from residents about the announcement. It arrived 24 hours after the first email. Here's what it says:
Quote
Collingwood, ON – October 5, 2010
The Town of Collingwood is pleased to announce that the Silver Creek Wetlands are now one step closer to being protected and in public hands.
The Silver Creek Wetland is one of the last remaining coastal wetlands on southern Georgian Bay and it provides a variety of important biological, social and hydro-geological functions including flood control, water purification and sediment containment. The Silver Creek itself is the habitat for many species of fish including Brook Trout, Rainbow Trout and Chinook Salmon. The surrounding wetland is home to as many as 124 species of birds, numerous species of plants and the endangered spotted turtle. The Silver Creek Wetland is identified in the Town's planning documents as Category 1 Fish Habitat and Category 1 Provincially Significant Wetland - Silver Creek Wetland Complex.
In order to ensure that this rare environmental asset is preserved for future generations, Collingwood Council has had the foresight to secure an agreement with those who currently control the property that will ensure that the environmentally significant portions of the wetland are transferred into public hands. There will be more information in the coming weeks, and a formal announcement and dedication will be planned for the spring of 2011.
The Town of Collingwood is pleased to announce that the Silver Creek Wetlands are now one step closer to being protected and in public hands.
The Silver Creek Wetland is one of the last remaining coastal wetlands on southern Georgian Bay and it provides a variety of important biological, social and hydro-geological functions including flood control, water purification and sediment containment. The Silver Creek itself is the habitat for many species of fish including Brook Trout, Rainbow Trout and Chinook Salmon. The surrounding wetland is home to as many as 124 species of birds, numerous species of plants and the endangered spotted turtle. The Silver Creek Wetland is identified in the Town's planning documents as Category 1 Fish Habitat and Category 1 Provincially Significant Wetland - Silver Creek Wetland Complex.
In order to ensure that this rare environmental asset is preserved for future generations, Collingwood Council has had the foresight to secure an agreement with those who currently control the property that will ensure that the environmentally significant portions of the wetland are transferred into public hands. There will be more information in the coming weeks, and a formal announcement and dedication will be planned for the spring of 2011.
You might ask yourself a couple of questions after reading that.
First, about the timing. What was the urgency of this that a press conference had to be called on short notice, and why wasn't it timed so all members of council could attend? Why couldn't it have waited until the next council meeting to announce it?
Second, does the announcement actually say anything concrete? What does "one step closer to being protected and in public hands" mean? It seems that the real story won't emerge until some vague time in the "coming weeks" when something is actually signed. After the election, perhaps? What, then, was Tuesday's announcement really about?
Finally, about the wording. The article in the Enterprise Bulletin notes, "This morning, Mayor Chris Carrier announced a deal had been struck with the land owner for more than 190 acres — and if all goes well, it shouldn't cost the municipality a cent."
If all goes well? So maybe something can still go wrong? Shouldn't cost the municipality a cent. Shouldn't is not won't. That suggest it might, after all cost us something (certainly there are legal costs attached to it!).
Is it actually a deal or just a verbal comment? It strikes me there's really nothing to announce yet, because as the paper notes there's nothing signed: "All that remains, said Carrier, is for the "i's to be dotted and the t's to be crossed"; the matter is still before the Ontario Municipal Board for a mediated settlement."
So why not wait until everything is signed, the OMB has agreed to the settlement and we're sure nothing can interfere with taking ownership?
This was all in the mayor's hands. Council was not invited co comment on whether this announcement was timely or premature. We weren't shown the press release before it was released, let alone asked to comment on it. Nor has council actually seen any agreement, heard from our lawyer, nor from "those who currently control the property" as to the exact nature or wording of this "agreement."
Had I been asked, I would have suggested the timing is not merely premature, but a trifle suspicious.*
But it will be good news, once it gets signed and formalized. And for all his cagey machinations in other areas, to his credit the mayor has been supportive of getting these lands into public hands. I just think it would have been better news had we waited until we had something formal to present, and not have any uncertainty about the agreement cloud it.
~~~~~
* Could this be (gasp!) a political announcement to make someone's political legacy look better than just a four-year-old water-filled hole on the main street suggests? Or perhaps it was timed to give a lift to the campaigns of some favoured incumbents whose showing in the polls has been sagging? Or am I just thinking too cynically and Machiavellian? I have been accused of being too negative, I allow. Probably a result of too many years spent in the media.
