| |
|
"Most of the other other developments around the
village of Stittsville are also built on wetlands."
|
Letter: There is a
definite dual standard here
Dear Editor:
The City of Ottawa and the Province of
Ontario are attempting to designate 650 acres west of Stittsville as
wetland, against the wishes of the property owners who are being
asked to foot the bill and whose land will be effectively frozen if
the designation succeeds. The motivation of the City is to protect
and preserve the supposed wetlands, so it is reasonable to examine
the City's record in this respect.
In the Goulbourn area
alone, the village of Stittsville has seen massive development since
the introduction of Municipal water and sewer services about 25
years ago. Since then, there has been,
and is ongoing, wholesale development of
wetlands in and
around the village of Stittsville.
| |
| |
There is no reason that wetland within suburban areas should
be treated any differently than wetland in rural areas.
|
|
|
|
|
In Stittsville, Brown’s Supermarket and the adjoining strip mall, at
the junction of
Main Street and
Hazeldean Road, is built on
wetland, as is the housing development directly east of it.
There is currently development of wetland north of this area,
across the
Hazeldean Road.
The current controversy about expanding the Stittsville Tim
Horton's is another case in point. Does anyone doubt that it will
go ahead despite the environmental protests.
Most of the other other developments around the
village of
Stittsville are also built on wetlands.
There is no reason that wetland within suburban areas should
be treated any differently than wetland in rural areas.
In theory, this is already the case but, in practice, wetland
within suburban areas is not effectively protected and gets
developed. The City must then find wetland in
rural areas to designate in order to satisfy the environmental
lobbyists. However, designating more wetland
does not create new wetland whereas developing wetland destroys it
permanently.
Indeed, the new wetlands that the city is ‘creating’
to compensate for development are contrived, rather than real,
wetlands.
There is a definite dual standard here. Urban
residents and councilors are permitting the destruction of wetlands
for suburban development. Then they turn around
and tell the rural residents that ‘we’ need to preserve 'our'
environment. Perhaps the urban residents
and councilors should look in the mirror and in their own
backyards before preaching to others about the environment.
|
| |
| |
...the new wetlands that the city is ‘creating’ to
compensate for development are contrived, rather than
real, wetlands.
|
|
|
|
|
Of
course, these people have ample excuses: “the land was never
officially designated as wetland”, or “the OMB made us do it”.
Nevertheless, real wetland is being destroyed.
And many of these same people are condoning and encouraging
such development by living in houses built on wetland.
We have never heard of an urban resident campaigning to do
the environmentally responsible thing and boycott such housing.
It appears that the City and Province only protect wetlands
that no-one wants to develop. That's no
protection at all. Given their record, we have to conclude
that wetlands are safer in the hands of private landowners than they
are in the custody of the City and Province.
Until the City is prepared to protect existing wetlands in
suburban areas, it should cease and desist from harassing rural
residents.
Tony Walker
Flewellyn Road
Stittsville
|
|