I am severely disappointed with Stevenson, after this.I would welcome some rebuttal on the points of the Councillor - particularly as she has not mentioned neither the benefits of providing the funding as proposed nor the risk to losing the Station Lands Project were the developer to postpone the project including indefinitely. I think it irregular to have a Councillor take such a position prior to debate and discussion in Council Committee and full Council but have this "memorandum" sent out which is now conveniently in the pubic domain to influence the public and her fellow Councillors.
If someone would be so kind as to explain "what" the Station Lands Project is, estimated value to construct and whether there are guarantees from the developer that anything will be built in exchange for the CRL funding spend for the project.
I am a resident of this Councillors constituency and am alarmed at the lady's style of politicking.
"MOU between COE and Qualico for the City to fund an underground pedway connection from Churchill LRT Station and Stationlands/RAM under 103A Avenue and also fund public realm improvements within Stationlands as well." From a previous post.So this would link to the current RAM pedway? Where is it supposed to go to? CN tower? Epcor tower? New residential building? All of the above?
Yeah, this would set a very off-putting precedent for developers, if councilors ripped up already-existing agreements made by previous councils. There should be a level of certainty that comes with funding agreements, and similar MOUs. I empathize with her concerns about our reliance on pedways, but this is not the way to address it.the issue was this was already decided by the previous council and is now being re-opened up...similarly with the Michael Janz wanting to re-open the Enterprise Land item.
You raise some very good points, and I agree with you overall. I just think it's better to apply this thinking to future projects, instead of a project which the city already agreed to help out.I think she makes some good points. If the pedway to being built to a private development because of safety concerns, is this money better spent on actually dealing with those problems? It is also interesting that a nearby developer was required to pay for similar costs. I can see why it is problematic to have Council covering costs for certain developers and not others.
I'm not necessarily against the pedway, but I am against councillors not taking a critical look at how the City spends its money. With limited resources it seems eminently reasonable to evaluate whether the City should borrow for this project or if there is something else that would have a larger positive return.
I get that this is tough for the developer, but I think how Councillor Stevenson is approaching this is correct way forward. The current Council must approve a borrowing bylaw based (in part) on the amendments made to the CRL bylaw by the last Council, which incorporated the pedway into the approved list of projects. Councillor Stevenson has told everyone in advance she doesn't agree with the previous decision and does not support borrowing to pay for the pedway.You raise some very good points, and I agree with you overall. I just think it's better to apply this thinking to future projects, instead of a project which the city already agreed to help out.
Yeah, this would set a very off-putting precedent for developers, if councilors ripped up already-existing agreements made by previous councils. There should be a level of certainty that comes with funding agreements, and similar MOUs. I empathize with her concerns about our reliance on pedways, but this is not the way to address it.