Policies & Threats Related to Greenspaces
May 12, 2012 Here are three pictures, courtesy of the National Capital Commission, from a presentation staff made to senior management in the fall of 2010. The street, “Pickford”, may not be local. (Pickford Drive in Kanata has a different street sign.) How would you like to have this happen to your street?
The federal government has created an Expert Panel to review its environmental assessment processes. Go here for more information. David McNicoll attended a workshop on November 8, 2016. On December 22, the Greenspace Alliance made a submission to the Panel. It argued that, if an environmental assessment amounts to assembling short-term data assembled to support a proponent’s proposal then this is “little more than a land delivery system, unmoored from
22 February 2015 This is stretching the terms of our mandate a bit but a majority of the Board felt it was important and appropriate to join the chorus of comments protesting the dedication of a prime area on Parliament Hill to a memorial to the victims of communism. Here is our letter. Local heritage architect Barry Padolsky was out of the gate first, with an open letter to the Prime
(posted to the GA List, 20 May 2015) As usual, the NCC has worked in its mysterious ways. Just over a year ago [in April 2014], on a tight deadline following a public meeting, one was asked to send in comments on a draft Capital Urban Lands Master Plan, its numerous Appendices and a draft NCC Policy for Parkways. Silence followed. Then, at its meeting of April 22, 2015, the
April 6, 2014 To: Madeleine Demers & Lucie Bureau Cc: Sandra Pecek & Jocelyne Moncion Hello, Please find below my comments on: – the Capital Urban Lands Master Plan, March 2014 draft – the CULMP Appendices – the updated NCC Policy for Parkways, March 2014 draft I would have preferred to share my draft comments with others in the community and send you comments on behalf of the Greenspace Alliance
On March 19, 2014 a meeting of the PAC was finally held. A large number of groups had been invited but only five people attended, representing the Poets’ Pathway, the Greenspace Alliance and Heritage Ottawa. Not much was learned, but repeated assurances were given that there were no plans to sell any land. The following week the NCC held public consultations about the NCC’s Urban Lands Master Plan, combined with
[page under development] In late 2008 the National Capital Commission announced that it would begin a process of review of its 1996 Master Plan for the Greenbelt. The Review was due to be completed in 2012. Under the leadership of Alliance member Sol Shuster, a Greenbelt Coalition was formed in the fall of 2008 to provide a strong community-based voice in the NCC’s review. The Coalition comprised virtually all the
At its meeting of November 20, 2013, the NCC’s Board of Directors approved the Greenbelt Master Plan. The final plan is here. A year later, on November 19, 2014, the Board approved an implementation plan (report and slides, 3.4 MB) which boiled the Master Plan’s 279 actions down to seven priorities: Greenbelt Visual Identity at entrances Greenbelt Branding, Communication & Marketing Strategy Visitor Services & Interpretation Restore Natural Lands Ecological Corridors
MYTH 1 Development jumped the Greenbelt, so the Greenbelt failed. REALITY This is one of the most widespread Ottawa myths about the Greenbelt. While Jacques Gréber in his 1950 report significantly underestimated the future growth of the capital region, he did foresee that growth outside the Greenbelt would take place. His idea was that these outlying urban communities would be relatively self-sufficient – in essence, have approximately equal numbers of
PDF version of this paper GREENBELT COALITION OF CANADA’S CAPITAL REGION Position Paper for the NCC’s Greenbelt Master Plan Review September 2010 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Background 1.3 Historical summary 1.4 The 1996 Greenbelt Master Plan 2 THE GREENBELT COALITION’S VISION AND GOALS 3 GREENBELT VALUES 3.1 Aesthetic values 3.2 Public ownership values 3.3 Environmental values 3.4 Agricultural values 3.5 Lifestyle and recreational values
