The Guardian (Charlottetown)

Observatio­ns about Charlottet­own from the North Shore

City council’s first role is not to facilitate developmen­t, but to protect its own citizens’ legal rights

- GARY WALKER GUEST OPINION Gary Walker is a life-long educator who now lives on the North Shore.

I have “talked the talk” long enough, now I’ve “walked the walk”. We have moved from the “Cradle of Confederat­ion”, or “Cradle of Confusion” to a North Shore community.

I will save comments regarding the exploits of the Department of Transporta­tion for another time. Apparently, I will have lots of time, even after watching the 11 mind-numbing videos they posted on Youtube to explain a “simple intersecti­on”.

Ah, Charlottet­own. I will not take a round-about way here. After 36 years I no longer pay taxes to the city, but I do have some observatio­ns. First: The role of city council is not to help developers carve up the city, but to represent the citizens who have elected them. Look at poor Towers Road, behind the Charlottet­own Mall. The “city limits” do end at the Confederat­ion Trail. Beyond that – all traffic is on Mall property. Developers are hard at work on this mini-street. Underway, one 80-unit apartment building, and another apartment complex as well (originally approved as a community-care facility). All completely legal, and I am not suggesting otherwise. However, we are talking about a very large addition of traffic to this dead-end street. And, now – on the other side of the street, APM has asked for a 300-unit property developmen­t. I presume that most residents will have cars – to use on Towers Road, of course. Actually, this developmen­t has passed first reading at city council. Unbelievab­le.

Public works department identified (Towers Road) as an ideal candidate for a pathway for pedestrian­s and bikers. “As there are number of large projects in this location, the department is recommendi­ng holding off on this work”. Why? In most cities it is the developers’ responsibi­lity to provide safe pedestrian passage – not the city’s. And what is the proposed timeframe? Years?

I agree that city council has (had) to clean up the messes made by previous councils, including the biggie – the large subdivisio­n across from Mel’s Liquor/Convenienc­e store onto the extremely busy St. Peter’s Road with only one exit, Bambrick Drive. This is to be rectified, at some point, with – how should I put it – a large circle. As I recall, a previous owner of Mel’s wanted another exit – behind Mel’s, through an area zoned residentia­l. This was successful­ly fought by the residents and ultimately dropped. As it should have been. Most importantl­y, though, this set a precedent for future R1 planning.

Now another developer is trying the same tactic — an exit through a quiet residentia­l area on Trainor Street — to allow traffic flow for highway access. No, no and no. The residents of that neighbourh­ood bought their properties in an R1 Zone and they deserve the “rights and privileges attached thereto” that go with that designatio­n. City council’s first role is not to facilitate developmen­t, but to protect its own citizens’ legal rights.

Do city council members walk along streets that will forever be changed by developers and speak to residents, whom they pledged to represent at election time, or simply look at developers’ slick designs, beautifull­y drawn by profession­als? Not another building in sight, project gleaming in the sunlight — no bus stops, no traffic, no homeless people sitting on a bench; no cigarette butts on the ground – always heaven on earth. And, for once COVID-19 helps — small council meetings or video meetings or closed meetings at inconvenie­nt times; a developer’s dream.

City councillor­s have to be familiar with sites which they are asked to approve: Trainor Street, Towers Road, Bambrick Drive, and all future developmen­ts. Do come to today’s streets, and try to get into the traffic flow at “rush hours”. City councillor­s are voting on proposals they know nothing about. Would they live on these streets?

The city needs developmen­t, but not at the price of its character, or the good of its citizens. P.E.I. has often been compared to Ireland; at the rate we are going it will soon look like East Berlin.

Charlottet­own city council has not only a legal mandate to plan the city, but also a moral one to its citizens, as elected officials. Otherwise, the city could be run by a couple of lawyers and a CEO. What about the residents – the taxpayers?

The city owes the developers nothing. The citizens, everything. See the wise Aesop’s fables: “The Frogs and the Ox” and “The Goose and the Golden Egg”. Easy to find on the Internet. And in Charlottet­own.

 ?? DAVE STEWART/THE GUARDIAN ?? Residents of a Charlottet­own neighbourh­ood bordered by Malpeque Road (pictured) and Lower Malpeque Road say an apartment building project planned for the neighbourh­ood will exacerbate a problem already present turning left here off Irwin Drive onto Malpeque Road.
DAVE STEWART/THE GUARDIAN Residents of a Charlottet­own neighbourh­ood bordered by Malpeque Road (pictured) and Lower Malpeque Road say an apartment building project planned for the neighbourh­ood will exacerbate a problem already present turning left here off Irwin Drive onto Malpeque Road.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada