Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Why Not Have A Public Meeting...

It seems every time a developer turns around to do something with any scale to it in Charlottetown the City wants to call a public meeting.... so why not call one here as surely they wouldn’t want a double standard happening out there... I can understand the Dealer's concern with the “roundabout” as I really do believe it will affect his business and I also agree with his concerns related to the pedestrian traffic trying to cross the intersection... and although there's not a lot of "foot" traffic there now the City is aware that 51 new apartments are being built in the immediate area and I suspect over time there will be a large residential component developed at the rear of the Experimental Farm that could also add more pedestrian traffic to that area... has any of this been factored into the engineering report? all this being said my issue here is not whether the "roundabout" works better than fixing up the existing intersection... as all I'm interested in is what’s the "safest" option at the "lowest" price for taxpayers and proceed on that bases... it's a tough question and one I'd like to ask Council as they haven't responded to any of my written requests, so let's have a "public" meeting and get it out in the open... and with a election coming up soon you would think that wouldn't be too much to ask for... Mitch Tweel has figured it out and so should Council by calling a meeting..
Dealership co-owner wants public meeting on roundabout
The Guardian
The co-owner of a Charlottetown dealership wants to set the record straight — not all business owners near the corner of Mount Edward Road and Allen Street are in favour of the proposed roundabout scheduled for construction this spring. Paul Mifsud, co-owner of Island Chev Olds, gave The Guardian a copy of a letter he sent to city council Jan. 19. In that letter, Mifsud takes exception to comments public works chair Coun. Terry Bernard made during council’s public meeting last month. Mifsud said he obtained a copy of the minutes from council’s Jan. 19 public meeting in which Bernard talks about discussions on the roundabout with area businesses, saying: “The business owners are starting to like the functionality of the roundabout.” Mifsud told The Guardian recently that is not the case at all. “The fact is there is clearly a misinterpretation. There is nobody on the corner, be it residentially or commercially, that is in favour of the roundabout,” Mifsud says. Bernard said he was told by city staff that business owners were warming to the idea. The dealership co-owner said businesses were consulted about changes to the intersection but the changes they were told about involved a signalized intersection with dedicated left-turning lanes. Mifsud said he had no idea the city was going with a roundabout until he read an article in the newspaper. “They are spending $3 million of the taxpayers’ money without any involvement on behalf of the taxpayer, any consultation, any public meetings. They are steadfast in getting the project done without any interference whatsoever.” Bernard said council based its decision on approving the project because the consultants/traffic experts hired by the city recommended a roundabout. “They told us not only does it move traffic more efficiently, (roundabouts) reduce accidents by 90 per cent and they reduce high-impact accidents by 98 per cent,” Bernard said. “It’s very difficult for council to vote in favour of (a signalized) intersection that is widely known to be not as safe.” The city needed land from Island Chev Olds, Tim Hortons and the federal government in order to make changes to the intersection. “I sold them the land on that premise,” Mifsud said, referring to a revamped signalized intersection. Work is scheduled to begin in the spring on the roundabout. Vehicles should be moving through it by the first week of July. It cost the city $1.5 million to repair the storm sewer underneath the intersection and it will cost an other $1.5 million to complete the roundabout. “All of the businesses and residents in the area went to a council meeting and were heard right in chambers, on camera. We asked them to take another vote and rethink this roundabout and go back to the signalized intersection. They did not do that. Our councillor (Mitchell Tweel) asked for a vote to go to a public meeting and they shot that down as well.” Mifsud said he has three problems with a roundabout — having traffic constantly moving will hurt business in terms of accessibility and exposure, it will cause traffic congestion at the nearby signalized intersections at St. Peter’s Road and Allen Street and at Mount Edward Road and St. Peter’s Road (1911 Jail corner) and that it will cause safety issues for pedestrians. Mifsud said he just wants the city to hold a public meeting on the issue, once and for all. If the decision is still to go with the roundabout after that, he won’t have a problem with it. Bernard said each councillor received their packages two to three weeks before the vote on the roundabout was taken. Part of that package included the chance to request a public meeting. “If anyone had any concerns, if any further information was needed or if anyone wanted to hold a public meeting, that would have been the time to ask for it. It was not requested.”

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Too much discussion. People can't agree. We elect these people to make decisions...get on with it.