Comments on: MPCA letter to Russell Mills, NCC Chair, re: next phase of the study http://www.stopthebridge.org/2009/03/mpca-letter-to-russell-mills-ncc-chair-re-next-phase-of-the-study/ No to Kettle Island. Yes to Healthy Communities. Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:46:48 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Patrick Bendin http://www.stopthebridge.org/2009/03/mpca-letter-to-russell-mills-ncc-chair-re-next-phase-of-the-study/comment-page-1/#comment-3944 Patrick Bendin Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:44:11 +0000 http://www.stopthebridge.org/?p=1121#comment-3944 Among other things, the MPCA's letter to the NCC is a thoughtful and persuasive rebuttal to the claim that the NCC succumbed to NIMBYism by acceding to the Ontario and Quebec governments’ call for environmental studies of three crossing sites, and not only the Kettle Island option recommended by its consultants. At the heart of this claim is a belief that those opposing a crossing at Kettle Island are putting their own interests ahead of the public good, and that their objections are selfish rather than principled. Accusations of NIMBYism are often an effective tactic for undermining perfectly reasonable arguments for opposing development by implying that opponents are so focused on their self-interest that nothing they say merits consideration. However, properly understood and addressed, such opposition helps to define and promote the public interest by forcing decision-makers and their consultants to revisit their assumptions about what this means in the context of particular developments. The best approach to perceived NIMBYism is therefore to deal directly and openly with concerns that engender it. In this case, the weight assigned by the NCC’s consultants to their study’s evaluation criteria reflects various policy preferences and values which were never disclosed, let alone publicly discussed before the release of their recommendation. The result is a recommendation based on obsolete planning ideas that again sacrifices the needs and interests of people and communities within the greenbelt, where all inter-provincial crossings are currently located, to the demands of the heavy trucking industry and Gatineau and other commuters, and also to the detriment of densification and other efforts aimed at creating a liveable and sustainable city. The lack of transparency in dealing with these concerns and not NIMBYism is why crossing sites in addition to Kettle Island had to be included in the next phase of the inter-provincial crossing study. It is also why this phase of the study should be done by different consultants than those who conducted the first phase. Among other things, the MPCA’s letter to the NCC is a thoughtful and persuasive rebuttal to the claim that the NCC succumbed to NIMBYism by acceding to the Ontario and Quebec governments’ call for environmental studies of three crossing sites, and not only the Kettle Island option recommended by its consultants. At the heart of this claim is a belief that those opposing a crossing at Kettle Island are putting their own interests ahead of the public good, and that their objections are selfish rather than principled.

Accusations of NIMBYism are often an effective tactic for undermining perfectly reasonable arguments for opposing development by implying that opponents are so focused on their self-interest that nothing they say merits consideration. However, properly understood and addressed, such opposition helps to define and promote the public interest by forcing decision-makers and their consultants to revisit their assumptions about what this means in the context of particular developments. The best approach to perceived NIMBYism is therefore to deal directly and openly with concerns that engender it.

In this case, the weight assigned by the NCC’s consultants to their study’s evaluation criteria reflects various policy preferences and values which were never disclosed, let alone publicly discussed before the release of their recommendation. The result is a recommendation based on obsolete planning ideas that again sacrifices the needs and interests of people and communities within the greenbelt, where all inter-provincial crossings are currently located, to the demands of the heavy trucking industry and Gatineau and other commuters, and also to the detriment of densification and other efforts aimed at creating a liveable and sustainable city.

The lack of transparency in dealing with these concerns and not NIMBYism is why crossing sites in addition to Kettle Island had to be included in the next phase of the inter-provincial crossing study. It is also why this phase of the study should be done by different consultants than those who conducted the first phase.

]]> By: Robert Gougeon http://www.stopthebridge.org/2009/03/mpca-letter-to-russell-mills-ncc-chair-re-next-phase-of-the-study/comment-page-1/#comment-3910 Robert Gougeon Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:16:09 +0000 http://www.stopthebridge.org/?p=1121#comment-3910 The above should read 'no access from the crossing to the ROckcliffe Parkway. The above should read ‘no access from the crossing to the ROckcliffe Parkway.

]]> By: Robert Gougeon http://www.stopthebridge.org/2009/03/mpca-letter-to-russell-mills-ncc-chair-re-next-phase-of-the-study/comment-page-1/#comment-3909 Robert Gougeon Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:13:09 +0000 http://www.stopthebridge.org/?p=1121#comment-3909 A modified combination of corridors 6 and 7 on both sides of the river does indeed offer a route with minimal community impact. The terms of reference should be expanded accordingly, and premised on a people/communities first approach. Other principles should be imbedded. For example, access from the new crossing to the Rockcliffe Parkway. Moreover, access to the Hemlock/Beechwood corridor should also be eliminated from the Kettle Crossing option before going any further. The next phase could be led by urban planners supported by transportation engineers and not vice-versa. Fully agree that community experts and potentially impacted stakeholders be fully engaged in the drafting of terms of reference, in the consultant selection and in the design of the consultation process. The public consultation process needs to be upgraded to ensure public views are also sought on drafts, not just positions. At the provincial level, transportation ministers could formally share oversight responsibility for the crossings with other interested colleagues (e.g., communities, health, environment) A modified combination of corridors 6 and 7 on both sides of the river does indeed offer a route with minimal community impact. The terms of reference should be expanded accordingly, and premised on a people/communities first approach. Other principles should be imbedded. For example, access from the new crossing to the Rockcliffe Parkway. Moreover, access to the Hemlock/Beechwood corridor should also be eliminated from the Kettle Crossing option before going any further.

The next phase could be led by urban planners supported by transportation engineers and not vice-versa. Fully agree that community experts and potentially impacted stakeholders be fully engaged in the drafting of terms of reference, in the consultant selection and in the design of the consultation process. The public consultation process needs to be upgraded to ensure public views are also sought on drafts, not just positions.

At the provincial level, transportation ministers could formally share oversight responsibility for the crossings with other interested colleagues (e.g., communities, health, environment)

]]>