Norton comments on Rockwood Boundaries
Newly elected city councillor Mel Norton made an interesting post about Rockwood Park boundaries. Norton, a practicing attorney, discusses the legal boundaries of the property as well as the “commonly understood and historic” boundaries of the park.
Norton’s post makes it clear that he doesn’t think the park should be sold off and developed. From his post:
“We don’t need to develop inside Rockwood and any developer that wishes to do so is wishing for the erosion of their property’s greatest asset.”
He goes further by suggesting:
“So before we go a step further with any development inside the commonly understood boundaries of Rockwood Park, the legal boundaries should be amended to reflect the commonly understood and historically intended boundaries. Let’s entrench the boundaries and allow development outside of them.”
I’d be interested to hear a well reasoned rebuttal to this from one of the “development” centric council members who think the park should be sold.
1 comment:
If there are currently 8 houses that are on lots up to 75 metres on Sandy Point Road in between the zoo and the golf course, why not have that whole strip zoned the same? I am not pro developing the park, but you drive by these current houses, would you know which empty space is park land or privately owned? I assumed they were all private and i'd be in favour of dividing off lots of similar size, fronting on Sandy Point Road only. Why not would be my question? Most would assume its not parkland now?
Post a Comment