8/7/2019 Untitled Document - Copy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/untitled-document-copy 1/1

I was pretty disappointed in the one-sided story in the February 17th Guardian, “Conservation Authority

under heavy political fire from city”. The writer’s slant was very obviously negative against conservation

authorities.

In this case the city was throwing arrows at the conservation authority at a venue that was not set up toallow the conservation authority to respond. I would liken that to tying somebody up and beating them

without allowing them to defend themselves. Yet the writer uses this as a gavel to beat Brain Denney upwith aspersions that he was “ claiming ignorance”. Is the chief operating officer of a multi-million dollar 

agency supposed to be aware of every little decision or action his staff do? Give the guy a break and the

time to investigate and respond before hanging him.

I’ll be interested to see if this response gets published as I have observed in the Guardian over the past

years a fairly negative tone when it comes to local conservation authorities. Secondly I must sign thisarticle as anonymous because I actually work for a conservation authority. Am I biased? Some may say

that, but I am also a taxpayer, and would like to think I have some objectivity which the writer lacks. Yes, I

have seen waste in the place I work and it aggravates me. But I also see as much waste in the way the city

of Brampton operates and worse in the provincial ministries. I also know that conservation authorities are

in a difficult place. The Ontario government continues to cut provincial ministries and programs protecting

the environment and guess who takes up the slack? Conservation Authorities. Conservation Authorities are

also put in a difficult position in that they are funded by municipalities, yet are made responsible for 

 protecting the environment and are often pitted against municipalities that at times want to undertake projects not in the interest of the environment. A clear conflict of interest. If the Conservation Authority

says no, then guess what, they get cuts the following year. So, what happens? The conservation authorityapproves the project and our environment and property are put at risk.

The article contends a few times that conservation authorities are slowing development down and costing

the city revenue. What is great about development? Do we want to be another Mississauga? Yes,

Mississauga has lower taxes and no debt. They have paid for that by development of all their lands. That

land is now almost gone and they face a future of little to no income from development charges, and the

need to service and maintain the infrastructure that was built. Just watch those taxes go up and the debt

accrue. Should that model of short term gains for long term consequence and debt be Brampton’s? Moneytalks and developers have money. Beware those that cry we need more development. To paraphrase

Palleschi, “environmental regulations are making it difficult for the city to attract development”. Really?

Those pesky regulations meant to protect our environment, protect our homes from flooding, protect our drinking water. I guess its okay to put those things at risk just so those poor developers can make a living

and city government looks good by balancing its budget.

Finally, on the accusation of the TRCA changing water modelling and Councillor Miles claims that Peel

Region Headquarters would not have been built in the 80’s under the current models. Hello. That was over 20 years ago. As time goes by science progresses and models become more complex and accurate. Of 

course the floodline mapping (areas prone to flooding) are going to change. What should the TRCA do? Err 

on the side of caution to ensure flooding doesn’t occur or appease developers by accepting a lower standard

and riskier approach? Guess who pays when horrific flooding happens. Us the taxpayers and the insurance

companies who then hike our premiums. I’d rather TRCA take its time and get it right then bow to interests

that often only consider their own bottom line.

To the writer of the Guardian article. Get both sides of the story before you print, and check the facts, dosome digging first. Sure conservation authorities can be a pain. No one likes to be told what to do on their 

 property when they need a permit, but they are there for a reason. To prevent property damage, to protectour environment and human safety. They also do a lot of good working with rural landowners, planting

trees, running education programs for kids and protecting our wildlife. There’s always two sides to a story,

remember that.