|
MANOR PARK CHRONICLE
mAy 2008
Ottawa River Crossings – Some Good News
At the end of the second round of consultations in February, it
became clear that the team charged with the Environmental
Assessment (EA) proposed to release their decision regarding the
‘technically preferred’ choices for crossing corridors only
after having gathered all the information on each corridor for
each of the adopted criteria. The team claimed that, only at
that point was it possible to assign weighting factors
appropriately. The public were largely unaware of this proposed
procedure. As a result, regardless of their decision, the choice
would be exposed to the suggestion that it was the result of
manipulation through the weighting factors.
I believed that this lack of transparency was a serious flaw in
their system and sought means to get things changed.
My first effort was to contact the team’s leader to persuade him
to amend their procedure, at the very least by explaining their
approach and allowing a chance for public comment prior to
announcing any decision. That attempt fell on deaf ears.
I then decided to appeal to the public directly. This I did
through the ‘letters to the Editor’ in the Ottawa Citizen
(letter submitted on March 18th and published on March 21st,
Good Friday). This had no discernable effect.
Finally, during a meeting of the City’s Transportation Committee
on March 19th, at which the team were reporting on the most
recent round of consultations, I introduced the following
motion:
“That the Interprovincial
Crossings Environmental Assessment Team schedule a further
consultation, before any announcement is made of the technically
preferred choices, focussed on achieving greater public
understanding of weighting of criteria and the manner in which
the Team proposes to arrive at its choice(s).”
The motion was adopted unanimously.
I believe that this motion had the desired effect for, on April
3rd, the team issued a press release which announced an
additional consultation “ …
regarding the evaluation methodology and give the public an
opportunity to further comment on the criteria that will be used
to evaluate the ten crossings ...” .
The consultation will take place in June at a date yet to be
determined. This will likely involve one session in Gatineau and
one in Ottawa. I encourage everyone to remain vigilant and
attend the subsequent consultation meeting. I am certain that
the meeting will be announced prominently via the media. It will
also appear on the team’s web site:
http://www.ncrcrossings.ca
s. Alternatively, I invite you to consult the special area
of the Rideau-Rockcliffe web site that I have prepared on the
topic. You will find a copy of the ‘letter to the Editor’ that
appeared on Good Friday, the full text of the press release of
April 3rd and much more information on the ‘Interprovincial
Crossings’ issue and Kettle Island in particular. The site will
be updated as new information becomes available.
Ottawa Official Plan – Some Alarming Proposals
Ottawa adopted its current Official Plan (OP) in 2003. The OP is
important because it establishes the guidelines for zoning
regulations. It describes how we wish the City to grow or evolve
in the future. For instance, our OP calls for ‘intensification’.
The OP also establishes an ‘urban boundary’ outside of which new
development is not allowed. Rural development was to be focused
on villages. These principles were intended to attenuate urban
sprawl that is so costly. Our existing low density (Ottawa now
has an urban density much lower than it had 100 years ago!) has
an important impact on our ability to control property taxes.
Provincial policy requires municipalities to update their OPs
approximately every five years. I have heard that, as part of
the review now under way, there will be proposals to:
• Set targets for urban intensification, citywide and by area;
• Expand the Urban Boundary by establishing a
‘performance-based’ boundary; and, finally,
• Reassess the amount of rural development.
Urban intensification, which I supported, has in my view, failed
because of the lack of respect shown for the parts of the OP
which were intended to ensure that ‘intensification’ in the
urban area was to “achieve compatibility of form and function”.
It was the stated intent that redevelopment would occur in a way
that was ‘compatible’ with the surroundings. It was accepted
that compatible design did not necessarily mean “the same as”
the surrounding area. Nonetheless, the drive to intensify too
often resulted in a ‘Karen Way–type’ of redevelopment. In my
view, the re-examination of ‘intensification’ now underway
should focus on clearer statements regarding compatibility. This
issue must be managed more successfully than it has been
recently because there are plenty of other ‘Karen Ways’ out
there.
The suggestion to expand the urban boundary is alarming in view
of recent decisions of the OMB. At the moment this notion is
advanced without any supporting data. When the urban boundary
was established, it was known that there was plenty of land
available within the boundary to allow for growth over 20 years.
I don’t believe that the situation has changed markedly.
Moreover, we all know of an enormous (336 acres) piece of land (CFB
Rockcliffe) presently underutilized within the urban core. In my
view, the City ought to focus its energies on working with
senior governments to see to it that another ‘LeBreton Flats’
scenario is not re-enacted in the nation’s capital. This is
preferable to working with land-owners just outside the boundary
who wish to see their lands acquire large windfall increases in
market value to the detriment of the public good. Restarting the
CFB Rockcliffe planning exercise would contribute to controlling
urban sprawl and make use of existing infrastructure.
In the rural area, 60% of the growth has occurred outside of the
rural villages, primarily in ‘country estate lot subdivisions’.
There are patterns here. There are repeated failures of the
City, both staff and elected officials, to make our Official
Plan function as intended. I urge my constituents to think about
these issues because they will affect your quality of life and
the affordability of City services.
Jacques Legendre
Councillor, Rideau-Rockcliffe
You can communicate with me at (please include a telephone
number):
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa ON K1P 1J1
Tel: 580-2483, Fax: 580-2523
E-mail:
jacques.legendre@ottawa.ca
Web Site:
www.rideau-rockcliffe.com
back
to index
|
