Introduction of the ill thought-out residential tree preservation bylaw is likely resulting in the premature destruction of many trees that might otherwise have been preserved for years to come. Judging by a report in the Ottawa Citizen (Tree bylaw gets chainsaws revving, Robert Sibley, Aug. 29, 2009) many trees have been cut down prematurely in the days leading up to the September 1 bylaw enforcement deadline. Over the past few days CN (or possibly VIA) have been cutting down mature trees along railway rights of way in this neighborhood (Riverview). No doubt similar work is being undertaken elsewhere too.
Action to implement the bylaw resulted from recent rural clear-cutting of forested land in rural areas of the city. Previously there was no perceived need for measures of this magnitude to be introduced in urban residential areas. Most residents go to some lengths to preserve and protect their trees. However, some residents do plan on removing trees for reasons other than because they are unhealthy/dead, or because of possible damage to house structure/foundations that is permitted in the bylaw.
What if a resident wishes to plant a vegetable garden? Plants need healthy soil, free of tree roots and with access to sunlight in order to grow productively. It is unclear that tree clearing for such purposes is permitted. This is yet another example of city council interfering unnecessarily and setting their priorities wrongly.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Delaying Kanata/Stittsville Development
It was disappointing to hear the negative comments from other west-side members of City Council’s Planning and Environment Committee regarding Councillor Peggy Feltmate’s motion for a moratorium on development, pending a solution to persistent flooding problems in the area (Councillors reject Kanata development ban, Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, Aug. 26, 2009).
It is also wrong that leadership on this issue is being left to members of city council. Why are expert members of city staff not coming forward to council with recommendations? There is clearly a lot of work to do before this problem is fully understood and a viable solution can be implemented. Why invite the possibility of further disasters to householders in the area by proceeding as if there is not a problem? Hopefully sounder minds will prevail when the motion is debated in a couple of weeks.
It is also wrong that leadership on this issue is being left to members of city council. Why are expert members of city staff not coming forward to council with recommendations? There is clearly a lot of work to do before this problem is fully understood and a viable solution can be implemented. Why invite the possibility of further disasters to householders in the area by proceeding as if there is not a problem? Hopefully sounder minds will prevail when the motion is debated in a couple of weeks.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Senior level government responsibilities to cities
Federation of Canadian Municipalities President, Basil Stewart,writes an excellent letter in the Ottawa Citizen (MPs must not offload responsibilities to cities, Ottawa Citizen, Thursday Aug. 26, 2009). He expresses concern that the federal government will attempt to balance its budget on the backs of municipal property tax payers.
The same issue also exists at the provincial level; a double whammy to the municipal tax payer. It is evident that the various levels of government fail to cooperated and provide longer term solutions to problems that affect them all. Instead we see announcements of band-aid financing that provides short term fixes that make individual governments and politicians look good.
Added to this, in Ottawa we see municipal councillors and provincial ministers sparing with each other about important municipal issues like storm drains and sewers as they try to position themselves as possible candidates in the 2010 mayoralty campaign. In the meantime they fail to address these important issues in a cooperative and constructive manner.
The same issue also exists at the provincial level; a double whammy to the municipal tax payer. It is evident that the various levels of government fail to cooperated and provide longer term solutions to problems that affect them all. Instead we see announcements of band-aid financing that provides short term fixes that make individual governments and politicians look good.
Added to this, in Ottawa we see municipal councillors and provincial ministers sparing with each other about important municipal issues like storm drains and sewers as they try to position themselves as possible candidates in the 2010 mayoralty campaign. In the meantime they fail to address these important issues in a cooperative and constructive manner.
The Greens don’t need a seat, Really?
In his Ottawa Citizen column of August 24, 2009, (The greens don’t need a seat) Andrew Potter suggests that Green Party members occupy their time as the environmental wing of the Liberals and spend their time lobbying on issues rather that in pursuing seats in parliament that they are unlikely to win. This opinion piece is both arrogant and misguided.
Firstly, the Green Party of Canada can only accomplish what it does because it secures funding from supporters and from Elections Canada because of its ability to secure a significant share of votes in federal elections. Without funding and without securing visibility through the electoral process, it would be able to accomplish little and its volunteer base would disappear.
Secondly, lobbying is primarily in the domain of issue specific organizations (e.g. the Sierra Club of Canada on environmental issues). As a political party the greens address the full spectrum of political issues within the federal domain, not just the environment. It is true that the Green Party vision addresses issues from a sustainability perspective but it maintains a viable perspective on all of them. Further, within Green Party members there is diverse opinion and there is democratic debate on all issues.
The issue that prevents the Green Party from winning seats and having the voice it should have in Parliament is the current electoral system. Over 10 per cent of voters support the Greens, yet they do not have any representation in Parliament (Ottawa Citizen, Letters-to-the Editor, Give Greens a chance, K. Jean Cottam, Aug 26, 2009). As K. Jean Cottam the letter states: “The answer is to change the outdated, seriously malfunctioning Canadian political system.”
Firstly, the Green Party of Canada can only accomplish what it does because it secures funding from supporters and from Elections Canada because of its ability to secure a significant share of votes in federal elections. Without funding and without securing visibility through the electoral process, it would be able to accomplish little and its volunteer base would disappear.
Secondly, lobbying is primarily in the domain of issue specific organizations (e.g. the Sierra Club of Canada on environmental issues). As a political party the greens address the full spectrum of political issues within the federal domain, not just the environment. It is true that the Green Party vision addresses issues from a sustainability perspective but it maintains a viable perspective on all of them. Further, within Green Party members there is diverse opinion and there is democratic debate on all issues.
The issue that prevents the Green Party from winning seats and having the voice it should have in Parliament is the current electoral system. Over 10 per cent of voters support the Greens, yet they do not have any representation in Parliament (Ottawa Citizen, Letters-to-the Editor, Give Greens a chance, K. Jean Cottam, Aug 26, 2009). As K. Jean Cottam the letter states: “The answer is to change the outdated, seriously malfunctioning Canadian political system.”
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Not all of Ken Gray’s Advice is good
Ken Gray’s editorial comment in today’s Ottawa Citizen (Some advice for Larry O’Brien, August 12, 2009) is interesting and entertaining but not all of his advice is good. He suggests sending Councillor Peter Hume to Queen’s Park to solicit financial support from the provincial government.
Despite Hume’s apparent popularity with the McGuinty family dynasty it should be remembered that Councillor Hume has been a player on city council throughout the various incidents of sewer flooding that have occurred in Kanata and elsewhere. During this time, much of it as chair of the city’s Environment and Development Committee, he has been in a position to initiate action. Only now and only to criticize a potential opponent for the 2010 mayoralty campaign is he making himself heard on this issue. Why should we believe him now?
Despite Hume’s apparent popularity with the McGuinty family dynasty it should be remembered that Councillor Hume has been a player on city council throughout the various incidents of sewer flooding that have occurred in Kanata and elsewhere. During this time, much of it as chair of the city’s Environment and Development Committee, he has been in a position to initiate action. Only now and only to criticize a potential opponent for the 2010 mayoralty campaign is he making himself heard on this issue. Why should we believe him now?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
More on the sewage spill crisis
An interesting letter in today’s Ottawa Citizen (Sewage spill record is our national shame, Tor Rustad, Nepean, Aug 11, 2009) reacting to Councillor Peter Hume’s response to Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson’s concerns. Rustad notes that “If Hume believes that this track record is something he can be proud of, we should all be very concerned.”
For the record, I shall not be supporting either Peter Hume or Jim Watson, should either of them run in the 2010 mayoralty campaign. The have both been in municipal politics far too long and should now be put out to pasture.
For the record, I shall not be supporting either Peter Hume or Jim Watson, should either of them run in the 2010 mayoralty campaign. The have both been in municipal politics far too long and should now be put out to pasture.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Flooding follow-up
Kathleen Petty interviewed Councillor Peter Hume on CBC Ottawa Morning today (Aug 10, 2009). The key issue was insurance industry concern over the large increase in claims due to storm related flooding. Hume did not really have anything new to say, but instead used the interview as an opportunity to attack Jim Watson. He agreed with most of Kathleen Petty’s observations and acknowledged that the Fernbank development might require rethinking. But no evidence of any real plans was offered.
Councillor Gord Hunter is also weighing in on this issue; suggesting that home buyers likely could not afford increased home prices that would result if builders were required to install sewage/storm drainage pipes and infrastructure that would handle the types of flooding that has occurred recently. Really! Does this mean that we can look forward to continuing construction of homes and subdivisions without adequate drainage infrastructure? And what about all the existing homes that are susceptible to flooding? Again, no talk of real plans!
The term “hundred year storm” has been used many times recently in connection with recent flooding events. This term is clearly misused in the context of changing weather patterns resulting from climate change. Neither the City of Ottawa, nor City Council, has the required skills or the necessary resources to mange this issue alone. Long term solutions are needed and this needs cooperation from all levels of government.
Councillor Gord Hunter is also weighing in on this issue; suggesting that home buyers likely could not afford increased home prices that would result if builders were required to install sewage/storm drainage pipes and infrastructure that would handle the types of flooding that has occurred recently. Really! Does this mean that we can look forward to continuing construction of homes and subdivisions without adequate drainage infrastructure? And what about all the existing homes that are susceptible to flooding? Again, no talk of real plans!
The term “hundred year storm” has been used many times recently in connection with recent flooding events. This term is clearly misused in the context of changing weather patterns resulting from climate change. Neither the City of Ottawa, nor City Council, has the required skills or the necessary resources to mange this issue alone. Long term solutions are needed and this needs cooperation from all levels of government.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Methinks thou doest protest too much
It is interesting to see Councillor Peter Hume re-emerge, responding to Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson’s “attack” on the city’s performance (Councillor seething over minister’s sewage remarks, Ottawa Citizen, Aug 8, 2009). Hume challenges the accuracy of Watson’s remarks; he notes that the city has a five year, $203 million plan to stop spills and reduce the number of overflows following storms. But he misses the point that the city continues to be tardy addressing sewer problems in Ottawa overall. Witness the lack of a solution to the latest round of flooding in Kanata. Further to this, it is likely that city plans to develop the Fernbank community will lead to further flooding problems in this area. Expansions like this can only contribute to an already overloaded sewer system.
Watson makes the point that the problem is getting worse and that much of the work will not even be started before 2010. So we can expect flooding and overflow problems to persist for years. How come things were ever allowed to come to this point? Perhaps because councillors and bureaucrats prefer to punish farmers posting quirky homemade signs and people who don’t manicure their lawns to some imaginary standard! Clearly the city continues to have its priorities wrong.
Hume’s salvo signals a start to his mayoralty campaign. All he is signaling is his ongoing disinterest in, and aggression toward, anyone who speaks out about the deteriorating state of the city and suggests that there is a better way forward.
Watson makes the point that the problem is getting worse and that much of the work will not even be started before 2010. So we can expect flooding and overflow problems to persist for years. How come things were ever allowed to come to this point? Perhaps because councillors and bureaucrats prefer to punish farmers posting quirky homemade signs and people who don’t manicure their lawns to some imaginary standard! Clearly the city continues to have its priorities wrong.
Hume’s salvo signals a start to his mayoralty campaign. All he is signaling is his ongoing disinterest in, and aggression toward, anyone who speaks out about the deteriorating state of the city and suggests that there is a better way forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
