Our Hotsheet has been updated again. Please take a look at what we're working on. Let me know if you'd like to be notified by email when we update the page.

I guess I'm not crazy after all! I got a bit of a friendly back slapping from a fellow citizen; thanks Dan!

Parkway land an asset - use it
Editorial - Saturday, May 19, 2007 - Peterborough Examiner

Re "No surprise: Parkway a good plan for 50 years" (Letter, May 17)

Three cheers for Doug Lytle's letter. He has said what I have been saying for years about people lobbying for non-use of those lands designated for the purpose that they were collected 50 years ago, to build a Parkway.

I too get annoyed by people who purchase property adjacent to vacant land and then complain when the land is developed. Just like people who buy a home adjacent to a school then complain about the noise the children make as they play. This "Parkway land" was one of the reasons I purchased my home where I did, believing that city council would eventually follow through on the plans to complete The Parkway.

DAN STUBBS
Fairmount Boulevard

No surprise: Parkway a good plan for more than 50 years Editorial - Thursday, May 17, 2007 Peterborough Examiner

Re "Never fear, soon those ugly parks will all be paved" (Letter, May 14) - Matt Vidler's letter was one of the best I've ever seen. I disagree with him, but it was an excellent read. Mr. Vidler's comments about a "crafty-enough council" are well founded - city council has been forced into piecemeal development of sections of The Parkway because of a lack of political will. The non-binding referendum on the subject was just that: non-binding. It is still up to our elected officials to do the right thing even after seeking public input. A non-binding referendum is merely used to gauge sentiment and is advisory. The government then interprets the results of non-binding referenda and may even (gasp!) choose to ignore them.

As far as a "war against nature," which is worse: slowly crawling through traffic to get from one end of town to the other, idling at a half dozen traffic lights for minutes at a time, enduring stop and go traffic (a proven pollution cause) or driving a fairly simple route through the city at a sedate pace while still saving time and fuel and possibly reducing the amount of net pollution? I don't know, but logic seems to dictate the latter is the lesser of two evils.

Let's not forget that the City of Peterborough has owned The Parkway lands for over 50 years for the express purpose of, you guessed it, building The Parkway - that's why they're called The Parkway lands and not the park lands. People who live along The Parkway lands knew there was the potential of a roadway being built next to their homes when they bought them - this shouldn't be a surprise or a revelation.

Mr. Vidler's comment about property owners next to Wal-Mart wanting to get market value for their homes is a point well taken. I was directly involved in the land negotiations for the new Wal-Mart and I can say, unequivocally, that each of those property owners was approached at the very beginning and asked if they would be willing to sell for market value plus a bonus for their time and trouble - all of them turned down repeated offers. No one bullied them, no one coerced them, no one misled them - they made informed choices of their own volition, so let's stop the Wal-Mart bashing on this front, shall we?

We need The Parkway to be completed. Now. It was a good idea 50 years ago, and it's still a good idea today. Let's get on with it.