NewmarketToday welcomes your letters to the editor at [email protected]. Please include your daytime phone number and address (for verification of authorship, not publication).
************************
Re: Plans for walking path altered due to residents' opposition, Nov. 18, 2020
The recent recommendation by Town of Newmarket staff is deeply disturbing and serves to illustrate, yet again, the lack of stewardship by staff and council of town resources. Recent examples include: the barricading of Old Bathurst Street by the University of Toronto to restrict access to Jokers Hill; the tendering of a contract for a consultant to advise the town on how best to utilize the Mulock Estates; their willingness to sell Hollingsworth Arena far below market value; among others. It is a long list, regretfully.
Specifically, there are four items staff failed to consider in their report.
-
The developer deeded that land to the town as a way to provide easy access for the residents in the northern part of Summerhill to the public transit service along Yonge Street. Considering the province invested almost $500 million into the public transit system here in Newmarket, their recommendation seems contrary to the goal of increasing transit utilization. If the recommendation by staff is accepted, people wanting to use Viva will need to walk either south to Mulock Drive, a distance of 500 metres, or to Eagle Street, 400 metres in the other direction. However, if they were able to exit onto Yonge at the end of the pathway as originally mapped, they would be within 75 metres of the Viva stop at Eagle, making transit a more palatable option.
-
Prior to the developer's generous offer of land, the town was engaged in a lawsuit with the Society of Friends over uncontrolled trespassing on their land, especially through their burial ground, by residents of the area who were trying to get quick access to Yonge and its public transit. The lawsuit was suspended by the Society following a commitment by the town to address the concern by creating a public pathway for the residents — it was this very path that was offered. Every effort should be made to protect the Society burial grounds from the damage trespassers could cause, and the path as originally proposed resolves this issue completely.
-
Town staff highlighted the cost of constructing a path through the area would come in between $445,000 and 787,000, depending on "design elements". Using other areas of the pathway as an example, I think a reasonable "design element" is an eight-foot chain link fence, some asphalt and lighting. I cannot see such "design elements" costing more than $450,000. If the property owners along that chain link fence are concerned about their privacy, they can do what their neighbours around town have done in similar circumstances — build their own privacy fence on their properties.
-
Most importantly, town staff failed to highlight that the residents affected by this path behind their properties executed their purchase with FULL KNOWLEDGE of this existing pathway. Complaining about this after the fact is like trying to get a refund for a meal you didn't like after you've finished it.
While I sympathize with and understand the residents' concerns, the report presented by staff falls short of what I would have expected, and these and other issues need to be considered before a final decision is made.
I recognize I am only one voice in this discussion, and appreciate the town can do whatever it wants with its assets. However, business acumen tells me that the value of a product or service is not determined by the seller; rather it is determined by what the buyer wants to pay.
The town has already established the value of land at $2 million per acre (they paid $24 million for the 12-acre Mulock Estates). Using that as the minimum value, the town must realize from any potential sale of this one acre parcel of land to the affected residents, I think a fair value for each portion of that acre backing onto the 17 residences would be $50,000, a small price to ensure their privacy.
I also think a reasonable expectation is that 100 per cent of the residents would be required to sign on to purchase the portion they back onto, as I do not think it is prudent for the town to own non-contiguous parcels of land they cannot access without an easement agreement, which would negate the sale as the residents could not restrict access to an easement.
I think the path needs to be completed as originally planned for the good of the entire community, not just the 17 homes affected.
John Heckbert, Newmarket
