Speech in Response to Removing Sensitive Re-charge Lands from being Part of the Countryside
My speech on Tuesday in response to Tom Galloway’s motion to not include the sensitive SW corner of Kitchener as part of the protected countryside. The motion was defeated, 14 to 3, and so the land will remain firmly agricultural and part of the countryside, not in the urban area. Tom, Mayor Zehr, Jake Smola and Jim Wideman voting in favour.
The following would have been removed from the motion for the final changes for the official plan
Request the Province to modify Maps 4 – Greenland Network and 6g – Other Source Water Protection Areas to designate the southwest corner of the City of Kitchener as Regional Recharge Areas as originally recommended to Regional Council on June 16, 2009
d) Request the Province to modify Map 7 – The Countryside to designate the southwest corner ofthe City of Kitchener as Protected Countryside as originally recommended to Regional Council on June 16, 2009;
Speech
Kitchener is leaking out onto our farmland and deflating our environmental plans.
The owners of the land in the SW corner have been led on a string, first for 12 months now proposed for 5 more years, that their land might be developed.
Many developers, consultants and land owners from all over the region have come before us asking to have their piece of land put back into the urban area. They have been turned down.
Just like Kitchener council did for the SW corner, the previous council of the City of Waterloo opposed designating the NW corner of Waterloo, another sensitive water recharge area, as part of the Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes. The Region designated the area anyway, which I agree was the right thing to do.
Why should Kitchener be treated differently than the rest of the region?
It is time we drew a line in the sand around the urban area.
Mayor Brenda said, “ It’s time to take a stand as a regional council and enforce a protected countryside line.”
Tom’s motion was introduced by Jim Wideman, the chair, as an amendment even though it was contrary to the full motion on the table as moved by Sean Strickland and seconded by Jean Haalboom long before anyone moved and seconded Tom’s motion. We complained but did not challenge the chair when he didn’t change it as “challenging the chair” can lead to councillors being ticked off unnecessarily. We carried on. At the end of the discussion, Jim called the question then spoke to the motion about the poor treatment of the owners of the land that will be designated. Jim stopped all rebutes on his words with this manouver but fed up councillors were having none of it.
Jane Brewer waved Tom’s paper in the air, calling it “This piece of paper”, refusing to call it an amendment and then she pointed out that the owners of the land had had a discussion with staff at the Ayr meeting and that if she was the owners,she would have pned the next day and arranged a meeting if this was such an important issue to them.
The ROP report on final changes and provincial response: http://bit.ly/abjUFG
ROP passed last year without SW corner included for one year for further consultation. http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/DocID/CA5BC18540AE6A2185257555006D0304?OpenDocument
After we also passed the transportation master plan, I thanked staff for all their hard work. I reminded council once again, that when I voted for the Light Rapid Transit, it was because I had been assured that the ROP with the firm countryside line protecting our farmland and environmentally sensitive areas and putting limits on urban sprawl; and the transportation master plan with its emphasis on more transit everywhere and more cycling and pedestrian routes would be passed. I was now satisfied that those requirements had been fulfilled. Because without those other pieces, the LRT would certainly not work as a method of intensification.
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/8ef02c0fded0c82a85256e590071a3ce/AB487A489BD086708525774600577521/$file/P-10-059.pdf?openelement
