Councillor Ian Findlay has posted on his blog a graphic recounting of what it was like to participate in, and particularly to leave, Thursday night's sod-turning at the Hanlon Creek Business Park.
Click here to check it out, but be advised it is, as I mentioned already, uncensored.
I was very disappointed that the Mercury chose to focus its headline on the protest, giving these arrogant upstarts more air time. The article should have been about the ground breaking and what it will do for the future of the city. Giving the protesters front page photos fuels their already-bloated egos, just like giving candy to a kid having a tantrum. Come on Merc - give us some positive local news instead of this tabloid hype. And by the way, your article states their were approx 75 protesters. If you look really closely at the photo on the Ward 2 site, and don't count the police and city staff keeping the crowd in check, there were exactly 48. A bit of an exaggeration that calls for a page 2 correction notice if you ask me.
Posted by: Bill D. | October 30, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Hi Bill,
Well, I'm pretty biased, but I think focussing on the protest was probably the right decision, if only because it was more interesting. The sod turning event was simply a scripted opportunity for the city to restate their same old position to the same old crew. But the protest was dynamic and fresh, with many different voices and opinions to be heard, much dialogue between strangers, and it featured participatory theatre, in contrast to the generic, exclusive spectacle of turning sod.
It's not much use to report on boring. Won't make it less boring by having it be more well known.
This sort of sod turning cermenoy is only remarkable because of the protest. In fact, probably the only reason it happened at this time was to reassure the rich and the powerful that the city wasn't going to back down in face of protest. So of course, the opposition needs to show that they don't intend to back down either.
Posted by: peter sainte-virule | October 31, 2009 at 01:08 AM
Lines have been drawn in the wetlands and it appears the struggle between the two "sides" will involve contact and impact for some time. There is occasional mention of the potential commercial tenants not yet signed up, not yet on the radar... so to an extent this remains in the disney category of "build it and they will come." My understanding is that a new and less local line is shaping up on the horizon... a campaign to educate businesses around the continent of the folly of considering locating in this controversial wetland "business" park... while I'm too busy with other things at the moment I do encourage those considering this campaign well in their disincentive initiative.
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | October 31, 2009 at 02:31 PM
Can we count on you to pony up the costs of in a special sur-charge for your property taxes?
Posted by: Bill Hulet | October 31, 2009 at 03:39 PM
The things I've been part of creating since 1983 in this town Bill put at least $500,000.00 in property taxes into the city coffers every single year. This results from more than a quarter century of real world activism in this burgh. So lets just say I'd be the wrong local activist for you to step up to on accountability and commitment in the real world of dollars and sense.
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | October 31, 2009 at 04:38 PM
Peter... this protest was "dynamic and fresh" and featured "participatory theatre"? Is this how you describe it? Then maybe you should have ended your comment with "... and then I woke up."
Posted by: j dimontino | October 31, 2009 at 05:09 PM
OK Ed. That sounds like a "yes", you do think that the property taxes should go up. Care to run that by all the boards of directors of those buildings you are referring to?
Posted by: Bill Hulet | October 31, 2009 at 05:17 PM
What I said does not sound like a yes to raising taxes Bill, other than to you and your incessant need to win some point of importance to you. My point, Bill, was that some of us have been doing community development work in the real world for a long time and have had a major impact on city revenues in the course of that work. But enough of the you said, you said stuff.
When the city makes its attempts to attract commerce one of the major strategies has been and likely will still have to be granting those new commercial enterprises relief from taxes. So the expense of bringing in and keeping those enterprises will likely result in raised taxes anyway.
But please get this straight if you can: I am not against bringing in more employers. I am against bringing them in at the expense of the Hanlon Creek watershed.
So at the very least can you speak to or on behalf of your oft-mentioned friends on city council and bring us an assurance that the new enterprises will not be attracted by offering tax breaks which will have to be covered by those of us already here?
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | October 31, 2009 at 05:49 PM
The protesters also seem to be the same old crew and are stating the same old position. It doesn't look like the protest was very dynamic and fresh. There is nothing coming from either the City or the protesters.
The whole issue is getting very tiresome and boring.
Posted by: Charles Smith | October 31, 2009 at 06:57 PM
How many salamanders showed up?Why was the UofG represented and yet the lowly Taxpayers were banned?Time the UofG paid a more appropriate tax levy than its "heads and beds"?
Posted by: Stinky-Winky | November 01, 2009 at 08:13 AM
In response to Ed's query:
"So at the very least can you speak to or on behalf of your oft-mentioned friends on city council and bring us an assurance that the new enterprises will not be attracted by offering tax breaks which will have to be covered by those of us already here?"
I have gone to the point of checking my facts and it is against the provincial law for the city to offer tax "holidays" for businesses to come to a new business park.
I hope that if the Limits people start using this as yet another pseudo "fact" (like the "old growth forest" and "heritage hedgerow") that people will be willing to shut them down right away.
Posted by: Bill Hulet | November 01, 2009 at 03:23 PM
Bill Hulet said: "I hope that if the Limits people start using this as yet another pseudo "fact" (like the "old growth forest" and "heritage hedgerow") that people will be willing to shut them down right away."
Good on you, Bill! Stick it to those Johnny-come-lately Limits pseudo-environmentalist types again! That will teach them.
How dare they think they know better than you?
The developers must be very proud to have you on their side.
Sheesh!
Posted by: Flossie | November 01, 2009 at 05:22 PM
What alternative are you suggesting, Flossie? That people should just let you spout your half-truths and fabrications unopposed? As for people "knowing better than you", why haven't I heard any of you guys respond to the university professor who wrote the guest op-ed in the Mercury which pretty much said that all this stuff about the HCBP being an "old growth forest" was a lot of hooey? I also have photos of the stumps in the woodlot that show that it has been selectively logged.
Tell me, is there any evidence at all that you would accept that could conclusively show that it is not an "old growth forest"? Or do you just adhere to that label the same way that religious believer has faith in the existence of God?
Posted by: Bill Hulet | November 01, 2009 at 05:45 PM
Bill,
I'm not a member of Limits, just someone is tired of you slamming anyone, ad nauseum, who doesn't share your opinion of what an environmentalist should be.
If you remember rightly I said that even if we argue about the definition of old growth forest, there are still old growth trees on the development site. Old growth trees that wouldn't have been protected at all if it wasn't for a small group of concerned citizens that decided to take the city to the OMB at their own expense.
It is also important to note that the amount of protection afforded these trees in the current plan is likely not going to be enough to ensure that they remain viable for long after the business park goes in.
There are also many other mature trees that will be removed to make way for the business park, trees that are already providing significant benefit to our community. The saplings that will replace them will take twenty years to reach any size at all.
Anyone wanting more information on the ways that mature trees benefit our community should visit www.guffguelph.ca. After that you may wish to contact the Mayor and council and ask why we don't have a protective tree by-law in place.
This business park is not the environmentally-friendly development the Mayor likes to talk up. And Peter Cartwright (development manager at the city) is not focussing on green business despite what the Mayor has said in the past.
We will also be putting Guelph's future water supply at risk yet we already know the city has at least three and a half years of development land available as well as 175 brownfields we haven't attempted to tackle even though the city has an award winning brownfield strategy.
Quite simply, wetlands do not make good places for business parks.
Did I also mention that it might be better to mothball this for five years while we decide what is the best way forward as we consider the twin impacts of climate change and peak oil?
I'm really struggling to understand what your motivation is in all this. Your holier-than-thou attitude to environmentalism is really too much.
How on earth could you have possibly have thought you would be a good candidate for the Green Party?
Posted by: Flossie | November 01, 2009 at 07:24 PM
Hi All!
I'm a newbie here so I'm still determining who puts work into their comments and who simply spouts..so a little ptience is requested.
On the issue of "mothballing" the HCBP it has been an ongoing project for years so suggesting it is some sort of spur-of-the moment issue is incorrect. I suspect the folks who oppose it will be perpetually in favour of delaying it for "just a little longer" in perptuity.
Civic leaders tend to not have the luxury of putting off decisions simply because they're unpopular with a relative minority of the populace, no matter how noisy they get.
There's no evidence opponents to the development have a mandate to do or say anything on behalf of the "citizens" of Guelph. Folks who let their name stand at
election time and were elected have unanimously supported the plan; they do represent Guelphites.
Most of the arguments against it appear to not be based on any sort of compelling evidence or research and almost entirely on the view that the person making them is sort of morally superior.
There's nothing about being in/running for the Green Party that obliges anyone to simply support the environmental flavour-of the-day. I'd expect the Greens to embrace causes proven worthy of support and toss the rest aside. Then you get into whether or not the Greens would even want to ally themselves with the lunatic fringers who've been so much in the press lately. It doesn't instill confidence in their judgement if they simply jump on any bandwagon with "environmental" or "activist" stuck to it.
Posted by: John L | November 08, 2009 at 05:58 PM