03 July 2012

Does Mayor Robertson really want to build condos on parkland? (Updated)

A story in the Straight quotes Vision Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson of supporting the idea of building housing on a portion of the Langara golf course.

"Meanwhile, Vision mayor Gregor Robertson told the Vancouver Sun last week that he's open to the idea of putting housing on the Langara course, which is just south of a Canada Line station. 'At this point, it is debatable as to whether that is valuable green space,' Robertson told the Vancouver Sun. 'The public can't access it, it is not biodiverse and there is no strong business case'."

Does the mayor really believe that parkland isn't valuable? Does he honestly think a public space isn't open to the public? Does he think that the trees, shrubs and grasses don't clean the air and produce oxygen for the city? Has Vision Vancouver really strayed so far from its origins that the Mayor doesn't think green space is valuable?

Jordan Bateman with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation told the CBC he also supports the idea of developing the land.

"If you even developed half of one of those courses, you’d probably generate enough revenue to hold taxes in line for probably another two or three years, or you could use that money for other infrastructure, things that people actually need and expect municipalities to provide," Bateman told CBC News Tuesday.

What Bateman doesn't seem to realize or care about is that after those 'two or three years' any gain would be lost and the parkland gone forever. He also doesn't seem to think that parkland is an important part of urban infrastructure. He seems to believe that somehow people don't need or want parks and green space.

One can only imagine that they all have become so beholden to the idea of development at any cost that they would sell off public parkland for a quick buck. Even the NPA never advocated selling off parkland for development.

What a sad commentary on civic governance. What a sad state of affairs.

1 comment:

  1. really? It's a golf course.

    Golf courses use a huge amount of environmental resources in water and fertilizer for the few people that play them.

    Agree that they could keep the park, but otherwise that area if the golf course is converted is a huge park for a low density area.

    Why not build in the density and have a good sized park and scrap the golf course?