Tim Marc, a city lawyer, represented the public at the OMB meeting organized by Urbandale on Nov 23.  This is the same Tim Marc who told Community Association Presidents and the SMHCRC in July that “The trees are coming down – no matter what”. 

Is it surprising that the result of the meeting was that OMB told Urbandale they cut down trees equal to 2 years supply of housing inventory?  One can only guess how vigorously Mr. Marc represented the public interest at that meeting. 

It is worth observing that the city’s legal department has had a very close relationship with developers over the years.  Not surprising since they work with developers on a daily basis – on both sides of the legal table. 

What is surprising is that the former city lawyer for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton now works for a developer, presumably to supplement his meagre city pension.  What does this say about the lack of conditions for accepting a public pension?  Why should we hold Cesaers wife to a higher standard of ethics than our public servants?

City staff originally estimated that fair market value of unserviced developable land inside the urban boundary is $210 K / acre which would put the acquisition of the Beaver Pond Forest at approximately $13 M.  Subsequently staff hired a consultant to arrive at a 3^rd party valuation based on similar recent transactions.  That valuation is not far off of the staff estimate.

Yet staff are inexplicably refusing to release the 3^rd party market evaluation they contracted for in October – not even to city council.  It is difficult to see this behaviour as consistent with public service.  Perhaps like the City police, they appear to have forgotten that they work for the public.

Why does Urbandale appear to lack any moral responsibility for not developing the most ecologically sensitive lands in Ottawa?  A charitable view might be that they were unaware of the significance of the area when they purchased it.  This establishes a case for paying them fair market value for leaving it undisturbed.  However, Urbandale’s recent behaviour raises questions in the minds of some about their sincerity as a responsible developer.

According to Marianne Wilkinson, Urbandale recently decided to unilaterally reduce the 12 acre swap to 10 acres and to also dictate which 10 acres would be preserved in such a manner as to optimize their subdivision north of the Beaver Pond.  Then Urbandale pulled the land swap off of the table so that they can be paid more during an expropriation.

Many responsible businesses would attempt to reach a win-win situation in a situation like this.  Does Urbandale believe that win-lose deals with the community are best for maintaining a healthy public image?

Worse, Urbandale appears to have no interest in negotiating in good faith on selling the land to the City/Community and are now alledgedly asking for $40 M in compensation – a price increase that includes being paid for 40% land that they paid nothing for because they cannot develop it.   Is this more evidence of a win-lose mindset at Urbandale?

This is the same developer who is paying property taxes on a $6 M appraisal (which is presumably close to what they bought the land for in Sept 2000).  Do they see no shame in this? 

Meanwhile the public and other buisnesses are expected to pay urban property taxes at close to fair market value.  The city could easily find the funds for acquiring natural heritage land if developers paid their fair share of taxes!

Urbandale has also hired a lobbyist who has met with most city councillors, except Marianne Wilkinson, to ensure that they understand the developer’s position.  Some of the new councillors, even experienced ones such as Peter Clark, have declined to meet with representatives of the SMHCRC as a result.  So much for the city’s public participation policy. 

It does not appear that Jim Watson’s administration is off to the fresh start that everyone who voted for him hoped for.  Developers evidently still think that they run City Hall and that the public purse exists for their benefit.

30 years later, according to ”Key World Energy Statistics’” from the International Energy Agency 2006, North America with 5% of the world’s population consumes 33% of the world’s resources.

Notice Canada’s embarassing position at the far right of the graph. Nobody else consumes as much energy as we do per capita!

If every other person on the planet consumed on a per person basis as much as we do, we’d need another 3 planets to provide for that consumption!

This consumption translates directly into greenhouse gas emissions. The chart below shows the outrageous per capita CO₂ emissions of Canada and the USA relative to the rest of the world.  Thanks to our resource-intensive industries, we rank along with Australia and Saudi Arabia among the world’s worst polluters.  Notice that most European countries are significantly less egregious emitters of CO₂.

Our recent election proved that politicians to not lead change, they respond to popular opinion. We must change popular opinion first and become embarassed enough to get out of our comfy chairs.