Tim Hortons parking lot is literally 6 ish meters above this property. Market and King is 20.
IMG_7611.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7611.jpeg
    IMG_7611.jpeg
    330.7 KB · Views: 36
  • IMG_7609.jpeg
    IMG_7609.jpeg
    389.8 KB · Views: 42
You haven't made any convincing argument lol. You just showed us a map that proves my point, this site is largely at the exact same elevation as a large chunk of Dundas lol. There's literally hundreds of other buildings at the exact same elevation as this proposal lmao. Should we just go ahead and demolish them because there is a minute risk of flooding? The obvious answer is no.

Why does an unelected bureaucracy (Conservation Authority) even have the power to deny an application like this? Seems pretty undemocratic and ripe for corruption.

I can't wait for the Ontario Land Tribunal ruling on this, where they will inevitable embarrass and shame the conservation authority for such a ridiculous decision. This is exactly the kind of issue Ford and Poilievre have been calling attention to. Bleeding heart activists controlling housing supply for questionable motives. Get the houses built! Funny how the same groups shout at the top of their lungs that we're in a housing crisis, yet they go ahead and deny applications like this. We've seen it time and time again here in Ontario.
 
Last edited:
It’s your choice to ignore elevations and pretend to discount the truth. Most of Dundas is not at the same low level as this property. The TimHortons is only 2 blocks away and sits 6-7 m above this. No one is saying the surrounding properties should be demolished and I don’t think anyone in this thread is saying this project shouldn’t go ahead. You own your anger.
 
I'm looking right at the map you provided and all i see is a vast swath of Dunas at the exact same elevation. Did you even read the developers report? I suspect you didn't.
 
Like I said. I’m not arguing against the proposal. I’m saying the possibility of flooding is not out of the question. It’s not too difficult to comprehend. The 3 screenshots I posted clearly illustrate that this property is the low point in Dundas.
Have a good day.
 
Crapht said:
Like I said. I’m not arguing against the proposal. I’m saying the possibility of flooding is not out of the question. It’s not too difficult to comprehend. The 3 screenshots I posted clearly illustrate that this property is the low point in Dundas.
Have a good day.
Click to expand...
For sure, flooding could occur. But if you read the developers report on that concern, they argued that the likelihood of such a catastrophic flooding event occurring to be so minor that is was borderline ridiculous. Not only that, they went ahead and addressed all concerns by raising the level of the development on an elevated berm, implementing specialized safety equipment, and creating a flood emergency early warning system for residents.

Spencer Creek is a dammed river, the flow is completely controlled at Christie Conservation area. Rejecting the entire development based on an event that may never occur is completely absurd. This is a classic case of bureaucrats overstepping their mandate, making ideological decisions that are far outside their area of expertise. The development completely adheres to the building code. If the conservation authority believes the risk posed to this development is so great, then let the insurance companies decide on that.

Defending such a poor decision is equally baffling.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top