Friday’s Headlines

8 comments

1. This article talks about why one shouldn’t expect the U.S. stimulus package to provide major support for mass transit. Just FYI

   Buses, Trains and Stimulus
   http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/buses-trains-and-stimulus/

2. Regarding Hume’s column, Irrational NIMBYism should not be tolerated… but should we be tolerating politicians and bureaucrats who want to brush aside all local opposition without looking at the merits of the case that opponents are putting forth. All too often, accusing people of NIMBYism has become a way of not bothering to listen to what they have to say and accusing them of motivated by their own “self-interest”. Trouble is though that WE ALL act on the basis of self-interest, so that can’t be the reason why a position does or doesn’t have merit.

   I realize that many readers on this site are probably cheering Humes’ column (and the comments made by the Premier on this subject). But the logical extension of Hume’s position is that any local opposition can get dismissed as NIMBYism — whether it’s against more hi-rise condos in a particular area (Queen St.W. anyone), a WalMart development (Leslieville), even a nuclear generating plant (which the Premier seems to be on board with).

   I’m in favour of wind power, and originally, I thought the only reason not to have a development off the Scarborough Bluffs was fear of dropping property values (and in fact, that may be THE reason for most). Following the coverage, however, I’ve since read that studies by the Ontario Power Corporation (charged with identifying feasible wind power sites) do not show this as an area where there is sufficient wind power to make such a project in this area viable. It’s also come out that standards in European countries would not allow such a project so close to shore (partly for ecological reasons). In the face of these points, I can’t help but wonder if the province and Toronto Hydro are hell-bent on ramming this project through for purely ideological reasons… in which case the long term prospects for alternative energy generation looks bleak indeed.

   So “Yes to wind power — where it is feasible”. But those who propose a project should have a duty to show their project is feasible (afterall, these are public monies). They should also be a legitimate process to properly consider the validity of opponents’ arguments rather than simply dismissing all local opposition as NIMBYism simply because of where these opponents live.

3. samg
   I completely agree. In fact the merits of this project off the bluffs has been anything but meaningful except for the photo ops.

   Kinda like dropping 250k to guess on the weather when you can’t figure out where the $$$s you really need are scarce.

4. Hey Toronto council ……….. http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/CAON0696
   Now can we have the $250,000 back?

5. I’m all for community “stand-up-for-your-home-rights” activism, but there’s proper and legal ways to aproach arguments. For starters, you get your facts straight then you approach your government about taking action. Community whinning about neighbourhood “aesthics”(*which I KNOW this is why they’re whinning, not health issues) won’t get you far. Reasearch is currently under way to prove that these wind-turbines will work, so stop your whinning and let them conduct their research. Like Mr. Humes mentions, if everyone complained about the aesthitics of our surroundings, nothing would ever get done!(*TTC anyone??)

6. Parkdalian,
   I agree that aesthetics is not a particularly important argument — and I’m not saying the people fighting this project on the Scarborough bluffs are right. What I am saying is that I have not heard why this site needs to have a wind power project at this time when the Ontario Power Corporation does not show this to be a viable site. If the project is feasible, by all means go ahead. But simply labelling opponents as “NIMBY” does not demonstrate that the project is feasible. When there’s already a list of feasible sites that have been identified, I think some people who support wind power (such as myself) are wondering why this particular project is being pushed through. My concern is also that if we don’t focus on sites that are shown to be the most feasible, people are likely to sour on wind projects very quickly…thereby paving the way for this Premier’s nuclear power agenda.

   P.S. I think it’s a little rich that Mr. Hume casts stones at anyone complaining about aesthetics, given that he seems to make his living on the basis of complaining about all things aesthetic in our great City. Or maybe he’s just protecting the turf that represents his livelihood.

7. I don’t really understand how the Bluffs wind power project is being “pushed through”, unless we are now referring to the Premier’s comments in the context of the project. The fact remains that those public meetings were about a wind anenometer to see if the project was viable, but all anyone was talking about was how wind turbines would ruin the view.

   While NIMBYism gets out of hand in a lot of situations, McGuinty et al. are walking on dangerous ground if they are out to define what is and what isn’t NIMBYism.

8. I just realized this.. but where’s post on MLG’s 10 year anniversary???

   Has there or will there be a post on this historic building?

   To further discussion, i suggest people read this site:

   http://www.friendsofmapleleafgardens.ca/action.cfm

   I hope that the few things that were mentioned in the papers today will incourage discussion on the future of Loblaws MLG location. It would be a real shame to see this heritage site turned into a grocery store. People need to speak out about it.