Anti-Development
Beside the Indian demands for a halt to all development in Brantford, there seems to be a small vocal group with an anti-development mind set in the general community as well.
These people claim that new developments would spoil their "view". Or despoil the natural habit. All the while ignoring the fact that when their house was built that it also did just that as well. Ah, but that was before and doesn't count and now they have their nice abode and to heck with everyone else. The population of the world is growing at an alarming rate and another billion people will be added to the total in the next twelve years. While not as dramatic the population of Brantford and Brant county is also increasing. Where are these people supposed to live? On the streets or maybe under the Lorne Bridge according to this anti-development lobby. Anywhere but in a new house or housing development near them.
While there needs to be careful planning of any new developments to protect green space and the environment and access to the river and trails it is stupid and elitists to oppose all development because it doesn't suit you. Recently one of my neighbours added an addition to their house and another built a wooden fence and both of these affected my "view". Should we outlaw such construction as well?
Another argument put forth by some is that certain developments are only done to minimum standards. Not exactly sure what is meant by that but I assume that they mean to just what is prescribed by the building code. Well there are not that many house in Brantford unless in the most affluent areas that are ever built to exceed these standards and many older house would not even meet todays minimum building standards.
Maybe Brantford could pass a bylaw that every house must be occupied by at least two people for every bedroom contained in that house. Or maybe all yards that were large enough would have to have a second house built behind the original house. If there was a swimming pool there already all the better because the hole would be a good start to the foundation.That would provide more housing for the expanding population without developments on vacant lands. But somehow I doubt that the anti-development lobby would approve of this either.
Nope the anti-development clique is well housed and you can go elsewhere or freeze out in the cold, they don't give a damn, just don't block their precious "view".
These people claim that new developments would spoil their "view". Or despoil the natural habit. All the while ignoring the fact that when their house was built that it also did just that as well. Ah, but that was before and doesn't count and now they have their nice abode and to heck with everyone else. The population of the world is growing at an alarming rate and another billion people will be added to the total in the next twelve years. While not as dramatic the population of Brantford and Brant county is also increasing. Where are these people supposed to live? On the streets or maybe under the Lorne Bridge according to this anti-development lobby. Anywhere but in a new house or housing development near them.
While there needs to be careful planning of any new developments to protect green space and the environment and access to the river and trails it is stupid and elitists to oppose all development because it doesn't suit you. Recently one of my neighbours added an addition to their house and another built a wooden fence and both of these affected my "view". Should we outlaw such construction as well?
Another argument put forth by some is that certain developments are only done to minimum standards. Not exactly sure what is meant by that but I assume that they mean to just what is prescribed by the building code. Well there are not that many house in Brantford unless in the most affluent areas that are ever built to exceed these standards and many older house would not even meet todays minimum building standards.
Maybe Brantford could pass a bylaw that every house must be occupied by at least two people for every bedroom contained in that house. Or maybe all yards that were large enough would have to have a second house built behind the original house. If there was a swimming pool there already all the better because the hole would be a good start to the foundation.That would provide more housing for the expanding population without developments on vacant lands. But somehow I doubt that the anti-development lobby would approve of this either.
Nope the anti-development clique is well housed and you can go elsewhere or freeze out in the cold, they don't give a damn, just don't block their precious "view".
posted by The Grouchy Old Man at 3:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home