(07-05-2018, 10:01 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Sure, everyone can speak up. But let's look at the comments from the two people who objected to the development, and what they are implying with their comments:
- "Commercial is the best use and gives the highest tax base"
Translation: She feels commercial is better, and a strip mall is preferable to affordable housing
- Wilbur suggested the change would lead to greater crime, drug use and trash in the neighbourhood.
Translation: People in affordable housing are criminals or drug addicts
- "Affordable housing has a negative impact on surrounding property values"
Translation: People in affordable housing reduce property values
- Wilbur went on to suggest the new apartment buildings should have no balconies on its south side. She noted south-facing windows along one wing of the Satellite Motel have been blocked off, giving neighbouring residents privacy.
Translation: People in affordable housing should not be able to see into anyone's back yard. And they don't need balconies.
- She asked that if the apartment project proceeds it not have reduced parking, and that a concrete privacy fence be installed to curtail noise and light pollution.
Translation: Traffic noise is OK for people in affordable housing but not for people in single-family homes
- Wilbur said people would have problems accessing the property coming southbound on Hespeler Road.
Translation: People in affordable housing are unable to turn left. Motel residents have no such challenges.
- He called for the regrading of the site to reduce the effects of potential toxic storm water run-off.
Translation: Affordable housing causes toxic storm water; no such problems with a motel.
Don't get me wrong. Your translation(s) come across as biased in a certain way and I'm curious why. What would you like to see with this development?