Burlington has its share of challenges

RE: Real quality of life indicators

To say one Canadian city is a “better place to live” than another is really a function of what measure you use. If the decision is primarily based on monetary considerations, then the choice becomes more of a clinical / spreadsheet process and difficult to argue against. Such seems to be the basis for the recent article “The numbers behind the 2nd best place to live” (MoneySense magazine).

This is somewhat deceiving because other yardsticks such as air quality, open spaces, hospital accessibility, public transportation, education system, shopping accessibility, support for the elderly and disadvantaged, etc. are of equal if not of more importance to many, yet they cannot be measured the same way as salaries, house prices, etc.

Burlington has shown phenomenal growth but with this growth comes many other factors that would greatly affect liveability and are not considered. For example, the traffic situation has reached a level of chaos, the infrastructure, e.g. public transportation, cannot support the growth; green space is rapidly being diminished (e.g. 9,000 trees in a prime area will be clear cut for a brick quarry); and every spare acre of land appears to be viewed by the City as a highrise tax opportunity!

Burlington is indeed a beautiful city but before we congratulate ourselves there are serious issues that need to be addressed if we are to be qualitatively evaluated and not quantitatively evaluated! Ian T Keaveny, Burlington