News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Northern Light said:
You are making a lot of assumptions about people you've never met, and presumably haven't done any research on.

You also are making assertions that somehow only mysterious 'elites' like journalists are opposed to environmental destruction.

There seems to be plenty of opposition to this highway from people who live in Peel, Halton and York; and plenty of opposition from people who work 40-hours a week, and drive and have commutes.
Click to expand...
Stop. The. Presses.
Did you poll people? How did you arrive at THIS assertion . I know "plenty" of people who work 40-hours a week, and drive and have commutes who would love to see this highway built instead of wasting their time stuck in traffic.
 
Student99 said:
Stop. The. Presses.
Did you poll people? How did you arrive at THIS assertion . I know "plenty" of people who work 40-hours a week, and drive and have commutes who would love to see this highway built instead of wasting their time stuck in traffic.
Click to expand...

Why the snark?

Why not calmly, and respectfully ask questions?

You do yourself no favours.

Do you think suburban politicians who have voted against this highway have no idea what their constituents think?
 
Northern Light said:
Do you think suburban politicians who have voted against this highway have no idea what their constituents think?
Click to expand...
I'd love to hear what reason the general public has for opposing this project. The general public doesn't understand technical concepts such as induced demand, however given the opposition from area municipalities, I'd wager that this project isn't particularly popular amongst those who are informed about it.

I'd imagine that environmental concerns would be the top reason why the general population is opposed to it.

Notably, the Pickering warehouse that was proposed by Amazon, and supported by the Provincial Government via an MZO, was just cancelled due to public concerns around the environment.
 
Student99 said:
In some cases, yeah, I do. That's how politics works. Politicians don't always follow their own direct constituents.
Click to expand...

Politicians, by and large, tend towards what serves their re-election. There certainly are exceptions. But the onus is on you to prove this is one.
 
Student99 said:
You do realize that the farmland of the area was created by clearcutting forests decades ago, right? It already isn't the original environment.
Click to expand...

Again, you feel the need to be insulting for no apparent reason.

As someone who has worked as a professional environmentalist in the past; I certainly wish much of what we now enjoy as 'class 1' farmland had been less altered topographically, and more of it kept natural.

However, that's done.

We also need to eat.

The 'class 1' farmland not only provides an incredible yield agriculturally, but also remains fertile in a way that would make restoration to forests, meadows or wetlands quite plausible should that be desired.

By replacing same with a highway, and by ensuring greater and faster development of land around said highway, we remove a source of food.

One that can't simply be replaced by cutting down more forest further north, as Ontario changes from the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Lowlands to the Canadian Shield as one goes further north.

Shield country is much lower nutrient and nowhere near as fertile.

Call me selfish if you must, but I'm rather partial to food; good food, at reasonable prices.

As such there is an inherent value in the land as agricultural space.

There is also a value in it being comparatively easy to restore.

Once you make it a highway, and litter it with sprawl that becomes substantially more difficult and expensive.

While our food supply is also diminished, and food costs rise.

To me, the trade is a poor one.

***

Just as a supplement to my personal bio, I've also worked in business, as an executive and board member; I own a car, and have had my license for almost 3 decades.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Politicians, by and large, tend towards what serves their re-election. There certainly are exceptions. But the onus is on you to prove this is one.
Click to expand...
These votes are incredibly close, in Vaughan it was a 5-4 vote. That is by no means indicative of any majority of thought and at best is indicative of the city being extremely divided on the issue. Then we can add to the fact that one or 2 councillors might've voted based off what they felt was the right thing to do rather than what is the most popular, there is certainly a strong level of doubt. To add to that point, yes politicians do what they need to do to get re-elected, but there is certainly some leeway. I highly doubt any of these politicians would lose their seats simply because of how they voted on a highway that they ultimately have no say in and is at best a stunt to virtue signal. These are also local politicians and unlike federal or even provincial politicians, are usually quite comfortable and are quite unlikely to get replaced.
 
Northern Light said:
Again, you feel the need to be insulting for no apparent reason.

As someone who has worked as a professional environmentalist in the past; I certainly wish much of what we now enjoy as 'class 1' farmland had been less altered topographically, and more of it kept natural.

However, that's done.

We also need to eat.

The 'class 1' farmland not only provides an incredible yield agriculturally, but also remains fertile in a way that would make restoration to forests, meadows or wetlands quite plausible should that be desired.

By replacing same with a highway, and by ensuring greater and faster development of land around said highway, we remove a source of food.

One that can't simply be replaced by cutting down more forest further north, as Ontario changes from the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Lowlands to the Canadian Shield as one goes further north.

Shield country is much lower nutrient and nowhere near as fertile.

Call me selfish if you must, but I'm rather partial to food; good food, at reasonable prices.

As such there is an inherent value in the land as agricultural space.

There is also a value in it being comparatively easy to restore.

Once you make it a highway, and litter it with sprawl that becomes substantially more difficult and expensive.

While our food supply is also diminished, and food costs rise.

To me, the trade is a poor one.

***

Just as a supplement to my personal bio, I've also worked in business, as an executive and board member; I own a car, and have had my license for almost 3 decades.
Click to expand...
That wasn't an insult, that was a question.

If adequate farmland is an issue, since you and others here are very pro-densification of urban centers, then why not advocate for vertical farming? Or rooftop farming?

I don't know why everyone is also saying that if we build this highway, it is condoning sprawl and automatically bring sprawl. Is it not possible to build this with legislation to prevent extra sprawl around it? We have plenty of highways that go through greenbelt without sprawl around them there.

I've driven all across the US, which has an EXCELLENT system of interconnected highways through the interstates, and many of them do not have sprawl around them. It is sad how our terrible highway system compares.

******
Also FYI Caledon approved a whole lot more residential development and a Go station this week, despite now being opposed to the highway. So, you see, it's very possible we could end up with more sprawl and NOT have a needed highway, and have more congestion on our streets.
 
Student99 said:
That wasn't an insult, that was a question.

If adequate farmland is an issue, since you and others here are very pro-densification of urban centers, then why not advocate for vertical farming? Or rooftop farming?

I don't know why everyone is also saying that if we build this highway, it is condoning sprawl and automatically bring sprawl. Is it not possible to build this with legislation to prevent extra sprawl around it? We have plenty of highways that go through greenbelt without sprawl around them there.

I've driven all across the US, which has an EXCELLENT system of interconnected highways through the interstates, and many of them do not have sprawl around them. It is sad how our terrible highway system compares.

******
Also FYI Caledon approved a whole lot more residential development and a Go station this week, despite now being opposed to the highway. So, you see, it's very possible we could end up with more sprawl and NOT have a needed highway, and have more congestion on our streets.
Click to expand...
Have you paid attention to Ford at all? The only reason he is prioritizing this highway is for his developer friends. It would lead to huge swaths of agricultural land being paved over.

Agricultural land is valuable for a whole host of reasons. Just because it isn't native Carolinian forest doesn't mean that you can replace it with a subdivision without massive environmental repercussions.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top