CITY STAFF SET TO PAVE A PATH THROUGH THE MEDWAY VALLEY HERITAGE FOREST
I am writing to solicit your assistance with stopping the City, in its infinite wisdom, from vandalizing Environmentally Significant Areas in London. The next target - the Medway Valley Heritage Forest.
Although this Forest may not be in your neighbourhood it is important to all London citizens and to future generations. City staff have plans to put ASPHALT multi-use pathways in all Environmentally Significant Areas. http://www.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Parks_and_Natural_Areas/Park_construction.htm
Please help in the following ways:
1. Read the entire e-mail to understand what you are asked to do and then send a letter to Jeff Bruin (jbruin@london.ca). Please do so by October 20th to state your concern over the construction of this pathway and bridge. Copy your city councillor, the Mayor, the controllers and all the other councillors. They represent all of Londoners and need to hear from you. Incorporate the information from this e-mail into yours using your own words. Jeff is the city planner leading this project.
2. Forward this e-mail to others on your mailing list asking them to also respond to the 1st point.
The addresses below are for : Anne-Marie DeCicco, Bill Armstrong, Bernie MacDonald, Paul Hubert, Bud Polhill, Cheryl Miller, David Winninger, Gord Hume, Harold Usher, Joni Baechler, Judy Bryant, Nancy Branscombe, Paul VanMeerbergen, Roger Caranci, Susan Eagle, Stephen Orser, Tom Gosnell, Gina Barber, Walter Lonc.
You can find out who your councilor is at: http://www.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/City_Council/default.htm
Like the Mayor, Gosnell, Hume, Barber and Polhill represent the entire city on Board of Control.
adecicco@london.ca, barmstro@london.ca, bmacdona@london.ca, phubert@london.ca bpolhill@london.ca, cmiller@london.ca, dwinning@london.ca, ghume@london.ca, husher@london.ca, jbaechler@london.ca, jbryant@london.ca, nbransco@london.ca, pvanmeer@london.ca, rcaranci@london.ca, seagle@london.ca, sorser@london.ca, tgosnell@london.ca, gbarber@london.ca, wlonc@london.ca.
The Issue:
* City staff are proposing to construct a 3-meter wide (with a one meter clearance on both sides) asphalt-multi-use pathway and bridge through the Medway Valley and Elsie Perrin Williams Estate.
* This path will go right through the middle of an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA).
* A 3-meter wide path is as wide as right-turn lanes on major roads in London, 5 meters wide is wider than most double driveways.
* Vegetation will be cleared - including shrubs and large trees.
* Reptiles will sun themselves on the asphalt and end up being hit by fast moving bikes
* Small mammals will not cross the asphalt due to the fact they will be out in the open and susceptible to predation by hawks etc.
* Compaction of the soil due to construction will destroy the root systems and natural decomposers
* The City has laid out the objective to put pathways in all ESAs in its draft Recreation Master Plan update. ESA's are not parks and should not be treated as parks - they need to be free of or have minimal manmade structures.
WHY is this happening?
The Planners get paid to plan and this is their plan so they want to proceed - they are not environmentalists or naturalists - they like to see roads and development.
The Parks and Recreation Department takes care of parks so they want to see "parks". But Parks staff use trucks to enter pathways for maintenance and the Upper Thames Conservation Authority under contract to the city cuts down “hazard” trees that are too close to the pathway and generally become an added expense (YOUR TAX PAYING DOLLARS) when the number of parks that require maintenance increase.
The City says that they are doing this according to the recommendations of the Bicycle Master Plan. This plan is about accommodating bicycles not about protecting the natural environment. I am aware of one individual who has ridden his bicycle on every bike path in this city and seen every park that the current bike paths are connected to and he is adamant that the Medway should not be turned into a park and pathway for bicycles.
ESA's need protection from those who are not forward enough thinking to see that the natural environment is more integral to our existence as a species than the built environment.
The Place we want to Protect for all Londoners and for future generations:
The Medway Valley is a very beautiful and essential part of London and a natural jewel in the heart of the City. We have photographed over 80 bird species within 600 metres of the proposed bridge. There are fox, deer, wild turkeys, weasels, skunks, muskrat, beaver, squirrels, chipmunks, groundhogs and cottontails and several other small mammals making the Medway Valley their home. Trilliums, dogtoothed violets, jack-in-the-pulpit, skunk cabbage, marsh marigolds and several other beautiful wildflowers are visible in the spring. With increased human activity each of these species of flora and fauna retreat to smaller and smaller spaces and will eventually disappear unless the area remains undeveloped and protected.
With the proposed changes, what I see happening in a few years is that the Medway will be another Springbank Park where the City will use your tax dollars to cut the grass and plant flowers rather than letting you enjoy nature as it was intended - without manmade structure and interference.
Each year there is more and more proof about the benefits of naturalization - it is even noted on the back of page 16 in the new London Waste Reduction and Conservation Calendar that you received this week. It states: "Naturalization is planting and designing green spaces (both public and private) using native species in an effort to restore the natural environment."
But Medway....it is ALREADY a natural environment and it will soon be compromised so bikers can get from one neighbourhood to another faster.
It seems in this City the desires of the human species take precedence over the needs of other species and the need to protect the environment that is designed to freely give us what we need to live.
Some questions:
* When will we learn that once it is gone it is gone forever? Introducing more bikes into the Medway Valley will do nothing but destroy the ecology.
* There is already a bike route around the Valley. Why is this one needed?
* Why not spend more energy and money on wider and safer bike routes on our city streets?
* Does the environment always have to take a backseat to our human wishes for convenience?
* Canadian Federation of Municipalities estimates that a good ratio of forest canopy, to be a truly balanced community, is 35-40% - in London we have a paltry 11% cover.
This bike path is being put in mainly for pleasure. Just imagine how pleasurable it will be to have increased numbers of humans on bicycles if you are an animal or plant living in the valley. The bike although better transportation than a car is still a vehicle that is capable of doing a lot of damage and does not belong in a sensitive natural area.
The city cites that they want a more active community of citizens. Then the + $200,000 dollars could be spent on getting people active in their own neighbourhoods, making the neighbourhoods walkable and safe for children to ride their bikes, rather spending the dollars on a pathway that the environmentalists, naturalists and other concerned citizens do not see as needed or helpful to future generations.
By the way this is not a Not In My Back Yard issue …. this is an issue for the entire community of London. If this bridge and pathway go through then the other ESAs are compromised as well. If this bridge and pathway go through then our future generations will not have access to a beautiful natural environment. The City's DRAFT Parks and Recreation Master Plan calls for 3-meter paved paths through all the city's ESA's. NO NO NO we cannot let them do this........
Link to further information: http://medwayvalley.wordpress.com/ and http://www.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Parks_and_Natural_Areas/MedwayValleyBridge.htm
Once it is gone it is gone....they are NOT making any more natural areas.
In the words of Joni Mitchell let's not "pave paradise"
PLEASE communicate with the City staff and councillors and tell them to stop this unnecessary destruction of our natural environment and wanton waste of our taxpaying dollars.
The planet thanks you and so do I.
--
Maryanne MacDonald
www.wastefreeworld.org
www.wastefreeworld.blogspot.com
"Our best option is to become involved and take action. Otherwise we leave our destiny up to the decisions and actions of others."
2 comments:
I completely disagree with you. The route around around the Medway is far from ideal and will not encourage bicycle commuting. From the public meeting and documents I learned that the siting of the bridge was carefully chosen for minimal impact. There are already paved and unpaved paths in the areas chosen. If we care about the sustainability of our planet and this city we need more bike routes like this one. I want people out of their cars - if we have to have a small impact on a corner of our city's green space it's a good compromise.
I also disagree to a certain extent. The bridge will have minimal impact across a natural area that is already covered in paths (albeit not asphalt). The bridge will likely encourage active transportation alternatives within the nearby neighbourhoods, which naturally goes a long way to saving our environments. Furthermore, the City of London is not the big bad wolf here - after all they do act on behalf of our city's residents. An example might serve to highlight some of your misconceptions: while the UTRCA had suggested constructing a multiuse pathway along medway creek all the way from fanshawe road to the current proposed bridge location, the City of London chose to route the bicycle paths throughout neighbouring streets leading to the bridge, thereby providing safe bicycle and walking routes for many residents while protectig the fragile ecosystem of the medway heritage forest.
The City will not pave massive paths through all ESAs - there are no plans to do that and there are actually environmentally responsble individuals working on our behalf to plan our city to the satisfaction of the majority.
Post a Comment