LETTER: Consider the best interest of all

Adding increased density to an already strained infrastructure does not make a great deal of sense.

The best interests of the many were somewhat overshadowed by the self-interests of the few.

This was evident at a Public Hearing in Council Chambers on Monday, April 7. A well prepared and eloquently spoken group of local residents made their feelings known at this event and which, in retrospect was simply “going through the motions.”

The overall impact of a new development will be felt by many in the Rosemont community not just the people in close proximity to “The Crossing” on Choquette Avenue. I am only thankful that at the end of the day we are for the most part a tolerant and understanding bunch in this creative and diverse community and we will get through it and be stronger as a result.

Having said that,the element of accountability is not just on the shoulders of the so-called well informed “decision makers” but on all of us. For those of us seeing the landscape change before our eyes, there will be reluctant acceptance that we will be inconvenienced during the construction phase, and once completed, by the increased traffic flow along Choquette Avenue and beyond.

However, let’s ensure that the “element of accountability” is clearly visible and ongoing and that while attempting to accept change we do so accompanied by the right to be heard and for our concerns to be given a fair shake.

While all the comments made by residents close to the proposed development were both relevant and appropriate, there was reference made to the impact of creating an additional multi-housing development that really hit home.

Adding increased density to an already strained infrastructure does not make a great deal of sense. Recent additions and expansions to recreational facilities adjacent to the park area in Rosemont means additional “people traffic”. The road network and lack of proper sidewalks in key traffic areas of the community (including Choquette Avenue) will lead to further strain and anxiety on residents.

Access to services (unlike the proposed Nelson Commons project) is limited, public transportation needs revisiting,and most importantly,a moratorium placed on any further development unless there is adequate community input and engagement.

When all is said and done,it really is about complete openness,transparency,and acknowledging that decisions must be made in the best interests of all those involved recognizing that compromise and a bit of give and take at times has a place.


Chris Ingles