Daniels Development in Lake shore woods – An approach Strategy (re-post)
Editors Note:
This is a re-post of the views of one of the Lake shore woods
residents. In an attempt to show no bias, we decided that it is fair to
re-post all views that show positive options that other residents might
like to consider. This post is well worth reading. It was posted only
2 days after the initial informal meeting with Daniels at Walton Church,
and is very intransigent to start with, but some excellent points are
made throughout. Readers of this post may notice some slight
differences from the original. I took it upon myself to correct some
typos and grammar errors. I hope Dorin Stanciu, the original author will
accept my editorial license in this matter.
"First of all, the very title of this paper contains an affirmation.
That it's going to be a confrontation. Make no mistake – it's going to
be one, and it's going to be tough, since millions of dollars in short
term and more in long term earnings are involved.
Also rest assured that our opposing party has all the advantages in this
confrontation.
Daniels has experience in such confrontations, can move faster than us
in both decision making and action taking, can mobilize more resources
in shorter time, has a tempting proposition for our Town Hall and the
list of their advantages can continue.
This is why we have to recognize our weaknesses and to have a systematic
approach to compensate for those weaknesses.
*Any good strategy starts by _defining success_.*
What can we call success in this confrontation?
What do we hope to achieve?
Therefore, what is the mandate we give to the Committee of the Lake
shore woods Residents' Association?
My suggestion for definition of success would be:
1. To prevent the condominium(s) construction in Lake shore woods - for
good, not temporarily.
If this proves to be not achievable, what would be a lesser target
acceptable?
2. To determine the construction of the smallest number of units
possible in on the land owned by Daniels.
In order to preserve this second option, we have to keep permanently an
open door for discussions with Daniels. They won't build fewer units
just because they're nice guys, but we need to be able to bring them to
the table when we want to bring forth an issue.
TO DO:
MAKE A POLL TO HAVE ALL RESIDENTS PARTICIPATING IN DEFINING SUCCESS/GOAL
IN THIS ENDEAVOUR. (URGENT)
Regardless of the goal set and strategy and tactics employed, two things
remain constant:
1. We'll have to bring the town hall on our side.
2. We'll have to mobilize the whole community.
These are primary objectives. No matter what we decide to do to achieve
our goal, we must have the mayor and the council on our side and we must
have the whole community involved.
As far as the town hall is concerned, we must show them how much they
have to loose if they are not one hundred per cent on our side.
- We'll get to vote in the local elections prior to the new
residents in the condo(s) moving in… which may change dramatically the
components of the council and the mayor taking advantage of an eventual
Daniels' victory
- We pay taxes now, the future residents don't pay taxes yet,
hence…
- They represent us, who elected them and pay their salaries,
not the future residents, or the developer
TO DO:
APPOINT A SMALL GROUP TO WORD THE DRAFT OF THE LETTER, WHICH WILL BE
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE AND DISSEMINATED TO THE RESIDENTS TO SIGN AND
MAIL TO THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR. (URGENT).
TO DO:
APPOINT A SMALL GROUP TO BE THE PERMANENT LIAISON OF THE COMMITTEE WITH
THE TOWN HALL AND DEFINE THEYS DUTUIES. (URGENT).
* *
The next step would be the assessment of present situation:
- The land is zoned "medium density"
- Daniels owns the land
- Daniels plans to build 100 units on the land
- The perspective of taxing 100 more properties on a small
piece of land is a stimulant for the Town Hall to help Daniels rather
than us
- Daniels did not file yet an application with the Town Hall
- Lake shore woods residents formed an association to fight
Daniels plans
- The residents' association exists only on paper and it does
not have any resources yet
- Time works against Lake shore woods association and for Daniels
Now it's time to formulate the strategy. How are we going to achieve the
above stated goal of preventing the construction of condominium(s) in
Lake shore woods?
First answer was suggested by one of the initiators of this project:
- Buy the land back from Daniels.
We'll see later on what are we going to do with the land. However,
that's something we'll have to figure out quickly, because the intended
use will play a role in the tactics employed.
Each scenario retained by the Committee will be subject for a detailed
plan of action elaborated, discussed and approved in advance.
TO DO:
MAKE A POLL TO CONCENTRATE COMMUNITY'S IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO USE THE LAND
AND APPOINT A GROUP TO DRAFT A PROJECT FOR THIS EVENTUAL RESULT
(COMMUNITY GETS THE LAND).
TOWN HALL MUST BE ATTRACTED IN THE EVENTUAL PROJECT. IF THEY CAN'T HAVE
THE MONEY, AT LEAST THEY CAN HAVE SOME GLORY.
However, we're still looking for answers here, and I suggest we initiate
a poll on the community forum (as soon as the forum achieves
representative stature) in order to decide what would be the course of
action in order to prevent the destruction of the woods.
TO DO:
INITIATE POLL TO DECIDE THE COURSE OF ACTION IN ACHIEVING SUCCESS
("SUCCESS", AS DIFINED BY THE OTHER POLL ABOVE).
THE SUGGESTIONS WILL BE ASSESSED BY THE COMMITTEE AND FEASIBLE SCENARIOS
WILL BE SELECTED FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT.
Whatever choice we make, are we going to be aggressive? My answer would
be "NO!" You can't be aggressive with somebody who can outspend you, and
generally speaking, out-anything you in this confrontation.
We must be very tactical.
Whatever choice we make, we'll need volunteers.
In this respect, I suggest we form a small group in charge with
volunteers. This group will have to maintain records of residents who
would volunteer, what would they volunteer for, when and how much time
can they volunteer, how can they be contacted, how much notice do they
need etc….
The Committee will have to keep track of all these small groups
mentioned here (groups of two- three people) and to maintain centralized
records of all the information these groups gather.
Whatever choice we make, we'll need project managers to work with the
volunteers. We'll need another small group to centralize information
about what capabilities do we have in the community in terms of project
management. Who has project management experience; in what field and to
what extent can they engage in managing projects for the community, in
order to concentrate resources, rise awareness, raise funds etc.
Among many other, time is one scarce resource for our community.
I'll recognize that I'll put an end here to my first intervention on
strategy issues.
As I'll find the time, and as you'll respond, I'll elaborate further soon.
Best Regards,
Dorin Stanciu"
The original post can be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LakeshoreWoods/message/8
Editors sub-note:
I personally believe that we can get through this development as a
community by negotiation, and sensible use of the bye-laws and
enactments already in place, and to a greater extent the good will of
the Daniels corporation. Their Vice President Naill Haggart did state,
to over 100 of our fellow residents, that nothing was written in stone,
and that as a company they did want to work with us and the council on
finding an acceptable solution
4 comments:
I am a very close neighbor to the planned construction. I live within 1 1/2 blocks and therefore feel entitled to an opinion on the matter.
I love this area and our home after a little over a year and a half of living here. It is by far the most perfect community which we have ever been blessed with the opportunity of living in; I am old and retired so that means a lot of communities.
It is my opinion that it is improper to try to force a zoning change on something that was in place prior to most of us buying our homes.
Prior to purchasing you should have decided if you could live with the existing regs, otherwise buy somewhere else.
A lot of you have businesses; how would you feel if government makes a retroactive change which hurts your potential success, by going against what you were told officially prior to starting up, as to you what you could do within the existing law, in your business?
What about the quarry owner north of our area who has had zoning for 4 decades to enlarge his pit when necessary. People who have chosen to live in that area recently would or should have been aware of preexisting conditions for pit expansion, and because of those preexisting conditions should have been able to pay less for their lots or houses, and now they want the rules changed against the quarry owner, in order that the newcomers can profit in one way or the other by preventing the expansion....where do they think the gravel came from for their roads and houses and thousands of others..and where do they get a right to cause trouble for a legitimate business operating within the rules (since before some of the new kids were born)?
If someone is not happy that the other party is simply doing what he is entitled to do, then sell your property and leave. I never bothered to check what was going to be built in the area, that is my fault, and yes I am disappointed that it will not be homes like ours but that is the end of it. It is not any of my business at this point and I am actually happy that my grandchildren will be able to meet more new friends than before the appartements are built..
What if the super rich in the lakeshore road area of Bronte and southeast Burlington had decided to get together and prevent our beautiful development from proceeding because they did not want our kind of scruff in cheap little million dollar homes near them...where would you be living now?
Everyone who is thinking that in today's society it is ok to stir up trouble to get what the individual wants to benefit their selfish selves should think very carefully about the selfish motives at play here. Maybe very politely ask the contractor for information, make very polite expressions of opinion if you must, and then butout because it is really none of your business at this point if everything has been done legally. The rules are the rules for everyone; or at least they should be!
I have never been lucky in about a dozen real estate deals due to job relocation but I never looked for someone else to blame or harass out of what is rightfully theirs.
What a wonderfully benevalent tactic it is to have two local amaturs find some unknown and totally useless form of lowlife in the adjacent woods to use as an ongoing harassment tactic...shades of the Hamilton bypass / link and its 19 year delay due to people with totally selfish motives preventing a well thought out new major artery from being built. A handful of selfish local residents concocted an "environmental protection " scheme and caused harm to half a million Hamiltonians who will only this year start benmefiting from what is best for the common good. A no brainer of a good road design that was stopped by selfishness and lawlessness for 19 years; what a comment on this sector of our society.
Please stop acting like spoilt brats and grow up neighbors.
Dear Old Retired Anonymous,
As was said, this is a Residents’ site, and everyone is allowed their comments, so I thank you for yours.
Undoubtedly there will be a few replies to your comments, so I’ll make mine as short as possible, and take your points in reverse order.
The issue we are talking about here is similar to the Hamilton Bypass link road in only one respect. It is the destruction of an environmental area to suit a development. Other than that, it bears no resemblance.
As you correctly point out, the woodlot was already zoned for development, the Bypass underwent many years of public debate in order to approve, then find the correct route. The bypass was not stopped, by delayed. And although, in your opinion, it may have been by selfishness, it was halted only momentarily by lawlessness, the majority of the 19 years delay was because the legal process was followed.
As for the two amateurs, as you put it, finding some “totally useless form of lowlife in the adjacent woods to use as an ongoing harassment tactic”, you may not be aware but there are 42 extirpated, endangered and threatened species of plants in Ontario alone.
Now I am not here to say they exist in the woodlot or not, and nor I suspect are the “amateurs” who have offered to get involved to see if they are. However you may also not be aware that they recognize their failings, and have asked for expert help from professionals in this field. Not to harass the builder, but to protect what is disappearing from our countryside.
It is apparent that you do not have a very high opinion of this “low-life”, so where would you draw the line and protecting endangered species? Caspian and Bali Tigers, Falkland Island Fox, the Dodo, or closer to home maybe the Passenger Pigeon, Blue Walleye, Great Auk, Newfoundland Wolf….Oops, too late they’re already gone.
Did their passing make a difference, who knows?
I mean some nasty form of fungal low-life found growing in a woods only gay birth to streptomycin and, oh yes, what’s the other one…..penicillin. Where would us spoilt brats be now if we’d cut down those woods to build houses?
The issue here isn’t about selfishness, or control of builders, nor is it in changing the laws.
The laws already exist to protect plant species, and wildlife. By not observing those laws, we are in fact breaking them.
There is also the law of freedom of speech. This allows us to have this dialogue.
There is also the right of every low-life that can’t protect itself from “the more intelligent species” of humans, to be protected by them.
And it is the right of your Grandchildren to be able to meet new friends without having to run the gauntlet across 1 & ½ blocks of 200 new cars in roads that were not built for that amount of traffic.
If it transpires that the Developers also have the right to build, we are asking for the right to negotiate with them to build something befitting for this community, one which you allegedly hold very dear.
If, and I suspect more when, they build, I personally want something that presents something beneficial to the community, with the least amount of risks, and the smallest amount of impact of our surrounding.
And yes, if this means little or no impact on the values of our properties, then guilty as charged, I am selfish, and maybe a spoilt brat, but I’m not yet sitting on my laurels, watching the rest of the world go round. I’m still striving to produce a future for my Children and their children, both financially and environmentally.
My two cents...
In our Agreement of Purchase and Sale, the area is clearly identified as Medium Density Residential. I'd be interested to know whether this is the case for owners who bought right at the start of the development (we bought late 2005).
I'd love to see this area remain a woodlot, but since the area was earmarked for development, I believe negotiating with the developer about the type of development might be more productive.
Dear Sensible Anonyomous,
At last the voice of reason. It is the intention of the LSW-RA to do exectly that. We all would ideally like to stop the development completely, and are investigating all the avenues (and there aren't that many) of legally making a challenge to the development. That said, I personally do not believe there is such a case in this instance. So what I and the other members of the executive of the LSW-RA (and we are only doing our best without a mandate at present, more on that in a later blog) are trying to do, is to get all the input from all the residents, and then see if there is some sort of compromise that we can put together to give the developers what they want (i.e. Profit), and at the same time try to fit as many of the resdients requirements in as possible, and still remain within the remit of the Official Plan of Oakville, which unfortunately, even for it's faults is all we have.
This is why we encoyrage as many people to read, inwardly digest and then make comments that are positive, and I personally thank you for yours.
Post a Comment