The following has been posted with the permission of the original author ...
To Whom it May Concern:
I want you all to know how upset I am with the Public meeting held by Energy Farming Ontario for the Whispering Woods proposed wind farm near Millbrook Ontario.
The meeting was advertised to be held from 5-8pm at the Millbrook arena. Many of us arrived just before 5pm and were out in the parking lot waiting for the doors to open to allow us to the second floor area. We did not stand out there with signs, we did not riot, we did not try to intimidate anyone we lined up peaceably waiting to get in. Once in we were greeted by 4 or 5 security guards, 2 uniformed OPP officers and 2 Plainclothes officers. We were told we must sign in and wear a name tag or we would not be allowed admittance. The lady at the desk was rude and insistent that if we did not sign in we were not allowed to attend. She even told many that this was an MOE requirement!
A sign was posted telling everyone that they were being videotaped and if we didn't want that we should leave. Many ended up leaving as the intimidation practice worked.
Those of us who stayed could not get close to the stations to hear what was being said. We could not tell who the employees were as most of them wore name tags with only a first name and nothing to identify them as employees.
This was supposed to be a public meeting for us to learn and ask questions about the proposed wind farm. Instead it seemed the goal of the Company was to make everyone.
angry and intimidated. The people who attended acted responsibly and I believe this company owes our community an apology for treating us like agitators and criminals.
Marion Thompson
Millbrook Ontario
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Know your Candidates
A number of Candidates in the Municipal Election support the Fraserville Secondary Plan, as it has been presented. One of them is quoted as saying Development in Fraserville is required to allow the Residents of the Township to “spend locally”.
Fraserville is not likely to have a “Main Street” of locally owned retail stores. A “Power Centre” consisting mainly of foreign-owned retailers, or large Canadian retailers, would probably be the type of retail store developed there. Not many of the products sold in that type of store are produced locally.
The same Candidate said that Residents are leaving the area to purchase goods and services not currently available here and, that by developing Fraserville, these goods and services would suddenly become available. If Cavan Monaghan had a market for any “missing” products, a business would have already started up to fill those needs. The proposal to eventually build 684 houses in Fraserville will not suddenly make it viable to open a new type of business. Creating another shopping area could actually decrease the Community’s choices as no shopping area would have a large enough customer base for the businesses to survive.
Cavan Monaghan needs jobs, but not necessarily low paying, part time retail jobs in Big Boxes. Although the economy is not ideal at the moment, the Township needs to aggressively pursue small Industries that require a variety of transportation options. Fraserville is an ideal site for this type of business, given it’s proximity to Air, Road and Rail. As a site for a retail and residential development, I’m not sure it’s ideal.
The Development Charges, necessary to pay the $10 Million++ Township share of the cost to provide water and sewer to Fraserville, will make the cost of residential development uncompetitive with other nearby Municipalities. Add to that the proximity of the Airport, the Slots and the Race Tracks and a widened highway through the Community and you have to question “if you build it, they will come”. It will be unique individuals who are willing to pay more to live in a community with heavy air and vehicle traffic and bright lights piercing the night sky.
Residential development around an airport is not compatible with the activities associated with an airport. Buttonville is a good example of what happens when residential development occurs. Not only does the airport close, but the industries that rely on the airport are forced to relocate. The Peterborough Airport is benefitting from the situation in Buttonville, but will that trend continue if residential development occurs in Fraserville?
Airportwatch is a group that complains on behalf of people living near airports. The noise and the pollution associated with Airports have been well documented by them. How can we complain about the setback distance for Industrial Wind Turbines on one hand and plan residential development next to an expanding airport on the other? How soon after people moved into new housing in Fraserville would the lobbying begin to shut down the Airport? What about the noise, traffic and lights from the races at Kawartha Downs and Kawartha Speedway?
The Fraserville Secondary Plan is already at odds with Places to Grow. A revised Plan compatible with the existing Airport, Kawartha Downs and the Slots might ruffle feathers at the County level and provincially, but it would make more sense in the long run. Sustainable growth, based on affordable infrastructure and compatible with what already exists, is proper planning. Development, at the expense of what already exists, does not make sense.
Before we proceed to spend $30 Million++ on water and sewer systems in Fraserville, let’s make sure we have a feasible plan and financially committed partners in the project. The Taxpayers of Cavan Monaghan cannot afford to bail out a failed attempt to develop Fraserville because the land speculators and developers decide it’s not profitable for them to develop the area after all.
I urge everyone to support Candidates who see the problems with the existing Fraserville Secondary Plan and have a Vision of how to fix it!
Above all, make your opinion known to the Candidates and vote according to their responses. Be sure to vote on October 25th. The future of your Community depends on it!
Respectfully,
Ian McQuarrie
Millbrook
Fraserville is not likely to have a “Main Street” of locally owned retail stores. A “Power Centre” consisting mainly of foreign-owned retailers, or large Canadian retailers, would probably be the type of retail store developed there. Not many of the products sold in that type of store are produced locally.
The same Candidate said that Residents are leaving the area to purchase goods and services not currently available here and, that by developing Fraserville, these goods and services would suddenly become available. If Cavan Monaghan had a market for any “missing” products, a business would have already started up to fill those needs. The proposal to eventually build 684 houses in Fraserville will not suddenly make it viable to open a new type of business. Creating another shopping area could actually decrease the Community’s choices as no shopping area would have a large enough customer base for the businesses to survive.
Cavan Monaghan needs jobs, but not necessarily low paying, part time retail jobs in Big Boxes. Although the economy is not ideal at the moment, the Township needs to aggressively pursue small Industries that require a variety of transportation options. Fraserville is an ideal site for this type of business, given it’s proximity to Air, Road and Rail. As a site for a retail and residential development, I’m not sure it’s ideal.
The Development Charges, necessary to pay the $10 Million++ Township share of the cost to provide water and sewer to Fraserville, will make the cost of residential development uncompetitive with other nearby Municipalities. Add to that the proximity of the Airport, the Slots and the Race Tracks and a widened highway through the Community and you have to question “if you build it, they will come”. It will be unique individuals who are willing to pay more to live in a community with heavy air and vehicle traffic and bright lights piercing the night sky.
Residential development around an airport is not compatible with the activities associated with an airport. Buttonville is a good example of what happens when residential development occurs. Not only does the airport close, but the industries that rely on the airport are forced to relocate. The Peterborough Airport is benefitting from the situation in Buttonville, but will that trend continue if residential development occurs in Fraserville?
Airportwatch is a group that complains on behalf of people living near airports. The noise and the pollution associated with Airports have been well documented by them. How can we complain about the setback distance for Industrial Wind Turbines on one hand and plan residential development next to an expanding airport on the other? How soon after people moved into new housing in Fraserville would the lobbying begin to shut down the Airport? What about the noise, traffic and lights from the races at Kawartha Downs and Kawartha Speedway?
The Fraserville Secondary Plan is already at odds with Places to Grow. A revised Plan compatible with the existing Airport, Kawartha Downs and the Slots might ruffle feathers at the County level and provincially, but it would make more sense in the long run. Sustainable growth, based on affordable infrastructure and compatible with what already exists, is proper planning. Development, at the expense of what already exists, does not make sense.
Before we proceed to spend $30 Million++ on water and sewer systems in Fraserville, let’s make sure we have a feasible plan and financially committed partners in the project. The Taxpayers of Cavan Monaghan cannot afford to bail out a failed attempt to develop Fraserville because the land speculators and developers decide it’s not profitable for them to develop the area after all.
I urge everyone to support Candidates who see the problems with the existing Fraserville Secondary Plan and have a Vision of how to fix it!
Above all, make your opinion known to the Candidates and vote according to their responses. Be sure to vote on October 25th. The future of your Community depends on it!
Respectfully,
Ian McQuarrie
Millbrook
Monday, August 16, 2010
Objections to Wind Turbines in the Millbrook Area
The following has been posted with the permission of the original author ...
I am writing to express my strong objection to the introduction of wind turbines in Millbrook area. Why? Because industrial wind turbines do not belong in neighbourhoods.
Under the Green Energy Act, Whispering Winds has proposed to erect 400+ foot wind turbines beside residential homes in the Millbrook area. The setback restrictions of 550 metres adopted by the McGuinty government are half of that established in other provinces and many European countries. Britain has learned from decades of using wind energy that turbines need to be further from homes. Recently a bill was tabled in the House of Lords recommending a minimum of a 2 km setback - almost four times the distance Ontario has adopted.
Property owners and taxpayers go through a lengthy approval process to obtain a building permit for any structure greater than 10ft x 10ft on their property. Yet a giant industry with absolutely no interest or investment in our long term welfare is given the ‘green’ light by provincial government to set up 400 foot monstrosities on a 1600 square feet base over the back fence!
A home is the biggest investment most of us have in our lives.
Many homeowners living adjacent to wind turbines have had to abandon their homes and move elsewhere due to ill health effects related in part to noise, vibration and flickering. They face dramatic reductions in the selling price, and, more often than not, are bought out by the wind company who subsequently leaves the buildings abandoned as no one can tolerate living there.
There is absolutely no provincial or municipal protection or compensation for losses suffered. This possibility is now on the ‘landscape’ for at least 60 local home owners adjacent to the proposed turbines.
Millbrook continues to work hard to attract tourists and business. Visitors enjoy the charming historic village atmosphere, the local theatre, specialty shops and more. People who move here are lured by the incredible natural beauty, peace and tranquility. Will 400 foot wind turbines add to this? Rest assured that the current proposed number of 5 turbines is not the end of it, but simply a foot in the door. Take a drive to Wolfe Island or Shelburne for a sobering reality check as to what can happen to a landscape enhanced by upwards of 80 wind turbines.
It most unfortunate that our community is facing this threat based on an ill-fated and ill-informed decision by a few landowners some of whom now realize they are trapped by binding lease agreements even though they want out.
This is not a matter of being against green energy. It is simply recognizing the obvious: Wind turbines DO NOT belong in neighbourhoods.
Please lend your support to the local cause. windnews@nexicom.net
For more information please contact: http://www.windconcernsontario.org/.
Thank you
Ruth Roberts
Millbrook ON
I am writing to express my strong objection to the introduction of wind turbines in Millbrook area. Why? Because industrial wind turbines do not belong in neighbourhoods.
Under the Green Energy Act, Whispering Winds has proposed to erect 400+ foot wind turbines beside residential homes in the Millbrook area. The setback restrictions of 550 metres adopted by the McGuinty government are half of that established in other provinces and many European countries. Britain has learned from decades of using wind energy that turbines need to be further from homes. Recently a bill was tabled in the House of Lords recommending a minimum of a 2 km setback - almost four times the distance Ontario has adopted.
Property owners and taxpayers go through a lengthy approval process to obtain a building permit for any structure greater than 10ft x 10ft on their property. Yet a giant industry with absolutely no interest or investment in our long term welfare is given the ‘green’ light by provincial government to set up 400 foot monstrosities on a 1600 square feet base over the back fence!
A home is the biggest investment most of us have in our lives.
Many homeowners living adjacent to wind turbines have had to abandon their homes and move elsewhere due to ill health effects related in part to noise, vibration and flickering. They face dramatic reductions in the selling price, and, more often than not, are bought out by the wind company who subsequently leaves the buildings abandoned as no one can tolerate living there.
There is absolutely no provincial or municipal protection or compensation for losses suffered. This possibility is now on the ‘landscape’ for at least 60 local home owners adjacent to the proposed turbines.
Millbrook continues to work hard to attract tourists and business. Visitors enjoy the charming historic village atmosphere, the local theatre, specialty shops and more. People who move here are lured by the incredible natural beauty, peace and tranquility. Will 400 foot wind turbines add to this? Rest assured that the current proposed number of 5 turbines is not the end of it, but simply a foot in the door. Take a drive to Wolfe Island or Shelburne for a sobering reality check as to what can happen to a landscape enhanced by upwards of 80 wind turbines.
It most unfortunate that our community is facing this threat based on an ill-fated and ill-informed decision by a few landowners some of whom now realize they are trapped by binding lease agreements even though they want out.
This is not a matter of being against green energy. It is simply recognizing the obvious: Wind turbines DO NOT belong in neighbourhoods.
Please lend your support to the local cause. windnews@nexicom.net
For more information please contact: http://www.windconcernsontario.org/.
Thank you
Ruth Roberts
Millbrook ON
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Care About Your Neighbours
The following has been posted with the permission of the original author ...
I recently had a conversation with a friend about my concern over the prospect of a wind farm development project in my immediate vicinity. His reply was twofold: I should support green energy since alternative energy forms are the future, and secondly, that I should not take a NIMBY approach to the issue. I think his response is not unique and I would like to share my opinion on this matter.
I would respectfully disagree with the first conclusion insofar as it lacks clarification. My strong disdain for wind turbine development in our township has absolutely nothing to do with the greater ethical challenge of creating a sustainable alternative energy source. I believe that alternative energy sources are necessary. However this statement in its generality has no direct bearing on whether or not a particular form of energy production—wind turbines—is suitable or appropriate. I would argue that wind turbine leases are generally being signed by land owners on the basis of a perceived financial gain rather than any greater philosophical commitment to our environment. Furthermore I would contend that even if these monstrosities are ‘green’ (and that is highly debatable) they have no place in a neighbourhood.
This brings me to the second response that I am merely taking a NIMBY approach. While I find great fault in our provincial government for railroading wind turbines through the province without any consideration for the myriad of negative implications on human health, safety, the environment, land worth and (unapologetically) the aesthetic, responsibility does not stop there. We, as citizens and owners of the land in this township have an obligation at our level to ensure that our actions do not negatively impact those around us. One should understand that the personal financial gain one may anticipate when signing a lease for wind turbines has far reaching consequences-- consequences that reach beyond ones own farm gate. Please consider this when you are approached by a wind turbine company. So I would extend the NIMBY approach. Not in my backyard. Not in our backyards. Not in our neighbourhoods. Please care about your neighbours.
Ryan Van Loon
Cavan Ward
I recently had a conversation with a friend about my concern over the prospect of a wind farm development project in my immediate vicinity. His reply was twofold: I should support green energy since alternative energy forms are the future, and secondly, that I should not take a NIMBY approach to the issue. I think his response is not unique and I would like to share my opinion on this matter.
I would respectfully disagree with the first conclusion insofar as it lacks clarification. My strong disdain for wind turbine development in our township has absolutely nothing to do with the greater ethical challenge of creating a sustainable alternative energy source. I believe that alternative energy sources are necessary. However this statement in its generality has no direct bearing on whether or not a particular form of energy production—wind turbines—is suitable or appropriate. I would argue that wind turbine leases are generally being signed by land owners on the basis of a perceived financial gain rather than any greater philosophical commitment to our environment. Furthermore I would contend that even if these monstrosities are ‘green’ (and that is highly debatable) they have no place in a neighbourhood.
This brings me to the second response that I am merely taking a NIMBY approach. While I find great fault in our provincial government for railroading wind turbines through the province without any consideration for the myriad of negative implications on human health, safety, the environment, land worth and (unapologetically) the aesthetic, responsibility does not stop there. We, as citizens and owners of the land in this township have an obligation at our level to ensure that our actions do not negatively impact those around us. One should understand that the personal financial gain one may anticipate when signing a lease for wind turbines has far reaching consequences-- consequences that reach beyond ones own farm gate. Please consider this when you are approached by a wind turbine company. So I would extend the NIMBY approach. Not in my backyard. Not in our backyards. Not in our neighbourhoods. Please care about your neighbours.
Ryan Van Loon
Cavan Ward
Friday, June 25, 2010
OH WHERE? OH WHERE? DID THE SIGNS GO
The following has been posted with the permission of the original author ...
On Wednesday June 9th, several signs disappeared from residents properties on County Road 21 east of Millbrook. Interestingly they were all “It’s About Water” and “Stop the Wind Turbines” signs. Our signs were all on our own property some 45’ or more from the centre line of the road.
I contacted the OPP to advise our signs had been stolen, some of which had been on our fenceposts since December 2009. I told the Officer I thought it was the County that had removed them but he didn’t think it would be them because that would probably be a violation of our freedom of speech.
It did turn out to be the County who removed all the signs. I was told by an employee “they were directed to remove all the WATER AND WIND TURBINE SIGNS on County Road 21”. I wasn’t told who instigated that directive, but the County agreed to give us back all of our signs and as long as they were placed 43’ from the centre line of the road there would be no issues.
This incident begs the question why when they were planning to close a section of Airport Road the protest signs located directly on the shoulder of County Road 28 were not removed. One wonders if the directive was from someone who has some influence within the County, for this to have happened so quickly because many of the signs had just gone up.
Marion Thompson
R.R. 1
Millbrook
On Wednesday June 9th, several signs disappeared from residents properties on County Road 21 east of Millbrook. Interestingly they were all “It’s About Water” and “Stop the Wind Turbines” signs. Our signs were all on our own property some 45’ or more from the centre line of the road.
I contacted the OPP to advise our signs had been stolen, some of which had been on our fenceposts since December 2009. I told the Officer I thought it was the County that had removed them but he didn’t think it would be them because that would probably be a violation of our freedom of speech.
It did turn out to be the County who removed all the signs. I was told by an employee “they were directed to remove all the WATER AND WIND TURBINE SIGNS on County Road 21”. I wasn’t told who instigated that directive, but the County agreed to give us back all of our signs and as long as they were placed 43’ from the centre line of the road there would be no issues.
This incident begs the question why when they were planning to close a section of Airport Road the protest signs located directly on the shoulder of County Road 28 were not removed. One wonders if the directive was from someone who has some influence within the County, for this to have happened so quickly because many of the signs had just gone up.
Marion Thompson
R.R. 1
Millbrook
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Re: Referendum
The following is being posted with the consent of the original author ...
Playing politics has never been for the faint of heart. Those who participate are much like the referees in sport. With two sides on any given issue, there will always be people upset with the outcome. An impartial referee often upsets both sides with a decision based on the facts that he or she sees, not on emotion.
The referendum question has only one logical outcome as most people would decline giving an okay to the unknown. It would be then logical to accept that the person representing that referendum wants that outcome.
A sports complex would benefit all people of all ages in our community. Now people need to leave our community and travel to where this is offered. The arena fulfills only one outlet and does this poorly. The changerooms are so small, you have to leave the room to change your mind. Parking is minimal, the stands and warming areas too small and certainly not comfortable.Now when one of our local teams are in the all Ontario finals, the canteen was so understocked, parents from both teams had to go elsewhere to get drinks for their kids. Nestea and carbonated soda was all that was available in a near empty cooler and the vending machines were not working or empty. The staff at the arena are hard working but can only offer what is there, yet they are the front line for all complaints people give them.
Missing from the referendum is the question of whether or not you support the spending of $10 million dollars on shipping water to Frazerville. Apparently spending of this nature and the impact on our tax bills isn`t any worry. The constuction of this and the impact on the route and long term effects are nothing to worry about. Man`s arrogance is astounding, with experts telling us not to worry, yet they can`t agree on why the great lakes water levels were going down , they assure that the water tables here will have no lasting impacts.
Many of us have children who play soccer and baseball at Maple Leaf park on land that I believe was donated by Maple Feeds to the north of the park. The rates have increased by over 40% this year based on a study of like sized municipalities and what they charge for these services. Whatever money spent on this fact finding resulted in our rates going up, based on what other municipalities charge. The only fact missing was comparing us to other municipalities with a casino. Part of the reason we allowed the casino was the financial benefits it provided and if we are paying the rates of other municipalities, why?
There is the opportunity of the former jail grounds. Rumour has it that the grounds are contaminated (maybe as a result from making the licence plates?). It will be costly to fix but why isn`t any effort to correct this problem being made. With all the infrastructure money being offered, would it not make sense to spend some effort in getting federal money to clean this up and then maybe try to turn this property into a community center? It is in walking distance of town , has parking for those who drive and would provide jobs for both full time and part time positions. It would seem cleaning up a toxic site and turning it into a community center would be a great photo op for many levels of government, aside from the benefits we would enjoy.
Some of my information could be wrong and if so the basic message should not be lost. If we are going to start governing by referendums and innuendoes rather than by elected officials, then make sure the referendum questions are fairly worded so we can make informed decisions. I certainly plan to voice my opinion April 6th and most importantly, October 25th
Derek Baker
Bailieboro
Playing politics has never been for the faint of heart. Those who participate are much like the referees in sport. With two sides on any given issue, there will always be people upset with the outcome. An impartial referee often upsets both sides with a decision based on the facts that he or she sees, not on emotion.
The referendum question has only one logical outcome as most people would decline giving an okay to the unknown. It would be then logical to accept that the person representing that referendum wants that outcome.
A sports complex would benefit all people of all ages in our community. Now people need to leave our community and travel to where this is offered. The arena fulfills only one outlet and does this poorly. The changerooms are so small, you have to leave the room to change your mind. Parking is minimal, the stands and warming areas too small and certainly not comfortable.Now when one of our local teams are in the all Ontario finals, the canteen was so understocked, parents from both teams had to go elsewhere to get drinks for their kids. Nestea and carbonated soda was all that was available in a near empty cooler and the vending machines were not working or empty. The staff at the arena are hard working but can only offer what is there, yet they are the front line for all complaints people give them.
Missing from the referendum is the question of whether or not you support the spending of $10 million dollars on shipping water to Frazerville. Apparently spending of this nature and the impact on our tax bills isn`t any worry. The constuction of this and the impact on the route and long term effects are nothing to worry about. Man`s arrogance is astounding, with experts telling us not to worry, yet they can`t agree on why the great lakes water levels were going down , they assure that the water tables here will have no lasting impacts.
Many of us have children who play soccer and baseball at Maple Leaf park on land that I believe was donated by Maple Feeds to the north of the park. The rates have increased by over 40% this year based on a study of like sized municipalities and what they charge for these services. Whatever money spent on this fact finding resulted in our rates going up, based on what other municipalities charge. The only fact missing was comparing us to other municipalities with a casino. Part of the reason we allowed the casino was the financial benefits it provided and if we are paying the rates of other municipalities, why?
There is the opportunity of the former jail grounds. Rumour has it that the grounds are contaminated (maybe as a result from making the licence plates?). It will be costly to fix but why isn`t any effort to correct this problem being made. With all the infrastructure money being offered, would it not make sense to spend some effort in getting federal money to clean this up and then maybe try to turn this property into a community center? It is in walking distance of town , has parking for those who drive and would provide jobs for both full time and part time positions. It would seem cleaning up a toxic site and turning it into a community center would be a great photo op for many levels of government, aside from the benefits we would enjoy.
Some of my information could be wrong and if so the basic message should not be lost. If we are going to start governing by referendums and innuendoes rather than by elected officials, then make sure the referendum questions are fairly worded so we can make informed decisions. I certainly plan to voice my opinion April 6th and most importantly, October 25th
Derek Baker
Bailieboro
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
It's a Matter of Respect
The following is being posted with the consent of the original author ...
One can't help but notice the difference in the process of how the studies regarding the current big issues in Millbrook's future were undertaken.
The Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company's study to determine the fate of Needler's Mill and the Millbrook Dam was done in collaboration with the community, and it valued and encouraged input from the public. The "open, transparent and engaging approach" involved the community in opportunities for discussion before recommendations were made, and the result, thus far, has been promising.
The Fraserville "project", on the other hand, seems to have slipped under the radar for years until the Open House in October disclosed that the original plan of obtaining water from well sites in that area had been eliminated and amendments were now being proposed to obtain the water from Millbrook. At that meeting, there were to be no questions or concerns from the floor, and people were directed to have one-on-one conversations with the experts whose data lined the walls. It was presented to the constituents as a seemingly "done deal". We hadn't even been informed about the many thousands of our tax dollars being spent on these experts' studies to divert the water.
The tremendous outcry and opposition to this project resulted in the township commissioning a Peer Review with the hopes that it would look again at the wells around Fraserville which were originally up for consideration. Apparently though, the Terms of Reference for this was somehow changed and this was not done, resulting in even more dissatisfaction. For your information, five hydro geologists (some top experts in the country) have now been informed about the water diversion plan and have expressed concern.
Perhaps our council feels that we are in the "Slots' pocket" and wants to keep them happy. After all, haven't we already received 32 million dollars from them? Yet, aside from the disclosed money spent (with some investigating) on the Fraserville project, the question keeps being asked:
Where has all the money gone? Where's the "openness and transparency" here?
Our township could clearly use a community center with a new arena, swimming pool, fitness rooms and rental space, which seems to be at a premium in Millbrook. What a beautiful spot the old jail property would be for this. And, there's obviously water there, as this has been sited as one of the reasons we have enough to give to Fraserville. Our township could also use a daily bus service to Peterborough. Wouldn't our money be better spent on something that would benefit everyone in our township, rather than being siphoned off to "Casino Town".
I want to thank all the people who are working diligently through SOCM as well as the many letter writers who are helping to make the public and politicians aware of what’s going on here. I'm hoping that our efforts are going to snowball and gather enough momentum and volume to knock the Fraserville plan flat. If only we could recoup all the money spent on those studies. Imagine what we could have done with that?!
Nancy Robinson
One can't help but notice the difference in the process of how the studies regarding the current big issues in Millbrook's future were undertaken.
The Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company's study to determine the fate of Needler's Mill and the Millbrook Dam was done in collaboration with the community, and it valued and encouraged input from the public. The "open, transparent and engaging approach" involved the community in opportunities for discussion before recommendations were made, and the result, thus far, has been promising.
The Fraserville "project", on the other hand, seems to have slipped under the radar for years until the Open House in October disclosed that the original plan of obtaining water from well sites in that area had been eliminated and amendments were now being proposed to obtain the water from Millbrook. At that meeting, there were to be no questions or concerns from the floor, and people were directed to have one-on-one conversations with the experts whose data lined the walls. It was presented to the constituents as a seemingly "done deal". We hadn't even been informed about the many thousands of our tax dollars being spent on these experts' studies to divert the water.
The tremendous outcry and opposition to this project resulted in the township commissioning a Peer Review with the hopes that it would look again at the wells around Fraserville which were originally up for consideration. Apparently though, the Terms of Reference for this was somehow changed and this was not done, resulting in even more dissatisfaction. For your information, five hydro geologists (some top experts in the country) have now been informed about the water diversion plan and have expressed concern.
Perhaps our council feels that we are in the "Slots' pocket" and wants to keep them happy. After all, haven't we already received 32 million dollars from them? Yet, aside from the disclosed money spent (with some investigating) on the Fraserville project, the question keeps being asked:
Where has all the money gone? Where's the "openness and transparency" here?
Our township could clearly use a community center with a new arena, swimming pool, fitness rooms and rental space, which seems to be at a premium in Millbrook. What a beautiful spot the old jail property would be for this. And, there's obviously water there, as this has been sited as one of the reasons we have enough to give to Fraserville. Our township could also use a daily bus service to Peterborough. Wouldn't our money be better spent on something that would benefit everyone in our township, rather than being siphoned off to "Casino Town".
I want to thank all the people who are working diligently through SOCM as well as the many letter writers who are helping to make the public and politicians aware of what’s going on here. I'm hoping that our efforts are going to snowball and gather enough momentum and volume to knock the Fraserville plan flat. If only we could recoup all the money spent on those studies. Imagine what we could have done with that?!
Nancy Robinson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)