[kEiThZ]

Bingo.

I think we can all agree that we don't want irrational opposition to prevent things that are good and progressive for our society from getting built. But, we do want rational and well-thought-out arguments to be heard so that we can make improvements to the proposal.

What separates a nimby from a valid critic, in my opinion, is the nature of the argument.

Perhaps a way around all this is to require that NIMBYs propose alternatives other than build it somewhere else. For example, although the WCC had shades of NIMBYism a lot of their requests were reasonable and were aceeded to in the end. Even if they were trying to jack up the cost in the hopes of cancelling it, they have ultimately given the city a better designed project that does minimize the impact on their neighbourhood. That's fairly reasonable NIMBYism.

 

[RedRocket191]

Perhaps a way around all this is to require that NIMBYs propose alternatives other than build it somewhere else. For example, although the WCC had shades of NIMBYism a lot of their requests were reasonable and were aceeded to in the end. Even if they were trying to jack up the cost in the hopes of cancelling it, they have ultimately given the city a better designed project that does minimize the impact on their neighbourhood. That's fairly reasonable NIMBYism.

Under the Rae government they could apply for funding to do just that. Officials reported that it made the decision-making process much simpler. Unfortunately the Harris government cancelled that program. Perhaps it's time for a return?

 

[kEiThZ]

I remember watching a rebroadcast of a news report from the 1980s on CP24 where the reporter asked a city official why shelters keep going in Parkdale and never in upscale places like Rosedale. He turned to the reporter and said something that made so much sense to me that is was actually kind of creepy...

"We can't afford to buy property in Rosedale."

Take from that what you will...

Exactly. That's why Malvern has ended up with more than its fair share of co-ops and shelters as well giving this neighbourhood the image of crime central...when in reality a lot of that is centered around the co-ops. In recent times there has been a very visceral reaction to every politician and civic official who comes by to propose another shelter or co-op. The half-way house was the last straw I think for most folks.

 

[waterloowarrior]

There are plenty of legitimate debates that can be made about alternative energy infrastructure... Should solar panel fields be permitted on prime agricultural land? (Food production vs energy production) Should wind turbines be permitted on visually significant landscapes (e.g. Niagara Escarpment), and if so what are the limits? What type of setbacks should be required for turbines, based on experiences in other jurisdictions?

The problem is that many people are treating these things like they are something new and unknown that hasn't been done before 10s of thousands of times in other parts of the world.

And for some reason people will treat turbines differently than a similar structure. For example, some people will oppose them because they say they could fall down and kill someone. If we were that bad at engineering, we really shouldn't consider any thing like telecommunications towers, power lines, skyscrapers, and even windmills. The tree in someone's backyard has a much higher chance of falling over. There is an OMB hearing in Ottawa right now over a backyard wind turbine where an opposing neighbour questioned whether a turbine could withstand a catastrophic event like a tornado. . .

In my (limited) experience working on the planning of these projects, a lot of the arguments against these proposals have a similar lack of legitimacy.... but councils can easily succumb to political pressure to delay or ban these projects.

 

[Railization]

Perhaps a way around all this is to require that NIMBYs propose alternatives other than build it somewhere else. For example, although the WCC had shades of NIMBYism a lot of their requests were reasonable and were aceeded to in the end. Even if they were trying to jack up the cost in the hopes of cancelling it, they have ultimately given the city a better designed project that does minimize the impact on their neighbourhood. That's fairly reasonable NIMBYism.

There's improvement, but they're still not going far enough by leaving out the CP tracks and not taking the trench below Lawrence Ave. W. The CP trench will have to start at Wilson Ave. because of strict grade tolerances, and wouldn't emerge from the trench until Rae Ave. probably (maybe Eglinton). The CN tracks would be out be Jane-ish. This would be a boost to CP's business since it would be able to operate trains at faster speeds with every crossing in Toronto grade separated, except in Scarborough, and there'd be less chance of service disruptions or fatal accidents, like when a kid got hit the other month in Weston by a CP train.

The other issue outstanding is the stupidity of the RDCs. The technology exists where a battery powered LRV could make the trek from Union to Pearson on a single charge, which would allow an electric vehicle to operate without electrifying the corridor, just the airport and Union station.

 

[T-Squared]

Novae Res Urbis Feb 25, 2009

GREEN ENERGY ACT
Nuclear criticism
The Liberals introduced new environmental legislation in provincial parliament Monday, proposing increased support and incentives for renewable power generation and provincially mandated setbacks for projects like wind turbines. “My goal is to make Ontario North America’s renewable energy leader,” said energy and infrastructure minister George Smitherman on Monday. However, critics such as Greenpeace have pointed out that the province has no plans to reduce its dependence on nuclear power. “The McGuinty government cannot have a serious green energy agenda when it is firmly committed to having 50 per cent of generation coming from nuclear power,” Greenpeace executive director Bruce Cox said in a media release issued yesterday. “It is greenwashing to say you support green power when you’re spending billions on nuclear.” Smitherman addressed the issue of the province’s nuclear power stock at a media conference on Monday afternoon, stating that the province wants to maintain a mix of different energy sources, including solar, wind, gas and nuclear power. Smitherman stressed that the weather may not always be conducive to solar or wind generation and thus, other sources of energy are needed. The province also wants to investigate converting some of its coal-fired facilities to run on agricultural by-products. The new legislation will see the province purchasing excess renewable energy from individuals, such as a homeowner who installs solar panels and generates more energy than the household requires. The province estimates that the proposed legislation, which has gone through its first of three readings in the house, will create 50,000 jobs in various industries related to renewable energy.
Renewable energy project developers also would have to submit a single application, through a streamlined, six-month approval process created by the energy and infrastructure ministry along with the natural resources and environment ministries.Speaking to reporters on February 20, Smitherman addressed the issue of universal setback requirements, stating that municipalities currently have their own different rules concerning setbacks for projects such as wind turbines and the province seeks to harmonize such regulations.“We’re going to express strong provincial interest in moving more renewable energy forward and in so doing create clear guidelines around where projects would be considered appropriate,” Smitherman said. “The responsibilities that municipalities have been involved in related to the Planning Act will indeed be lifted up to the Province of Ontario… I think that there’s a tremendous opportunity here to take off the backs of municipalities what for many of them has been a challenging and burdensome process where they’re asked to grapple in areas that are not of their expertise.” Several organizations have come out in support of the legislation, including Environmental Defence, the United Steelworkers union, Electricity Distributors Association, which represents dozens of local hydro utilities, Association
of Power Producers of Ontario, Toronto Hydro, Canadian Gas Association, Canadian Wind Energy Association, Association of Municipalities of Ontario and AgriEnergy Producers’ Association of Ontario. One component of Greenpeace’s campaign against nuclear power is a 10-city tour that kicks off tomorrow, called Climate Solutions: Nuclear Lies—Green Truths, which will travel to Peterborough, Lindsay, London, Hamilton, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Belleville, Kingston, Waterloo and Guelph. Calls to PC energy critic John Yakabuski and NDP energy critic Peter Tabuns were not returned.