Please Support the White Oaks Mums

On Monday, I had the pleasure of listening to the delegation of a group of mums from the White Oaks area, at the Environment and Transportation Committee meeting. And as a publicly outspoken pedestrian advocate, I was proud of them.

Not so proud of our local politicians.

Members of City Council refer to the city's Transportation Master Plan when it conveniences them to do so. And there's significant effort being made down at City Hall to cloak themselves in the garb of creative planners. They hired Sean Galloway last October as an urban designer, supposedly so that our city will become more livable. They even approved new placemaking guidelines.

But when it comes to spending any credible amount of money on alternate modes like walking or riding bikes, the excuses come pouring forth. They'd rather spend millions on top of millions to support automobile transportation which makes our urban sprawl problem worse, which costs the taxpayer many millions more in the long term.

So I was disappointed but not terribly surprised by the reaction of ETC to the request that walkways in the White Oaks park be properly cleared this winter.

Now, as somebody who's very familiar with that area of the city (having been a homeowner and raised my kids there), I can tell you that it's an area of the city which was created with a bit of vision. A lot of the subdivisions were located around a large area of greenspace, and they are therefore well-connected by the pathways running through the park between them. It significantly reduces walking distance/time, not to mention the also significant increased safety of not having to compete with cars. And the connectiveness promotes community spirit.

Presenter Marilyn Mylrea expressed it wonderfully: "It's the 401 of White Oaks. It leads to everything."

The strongest support for the request came from Councillor Joni Baechler:
"I would like walkways to be cleared."
"I'm very supportive."
"We've got to start doing things differently."

The strongest opposition came from David Leckie (Director of Roads and Transportation):
"Council has turned down winter maintenance for walkways in this location 6 times."
"We first have to make our existing walkways more accessible."
"This is a huge issue. It opens the door..."

Controller Hume latched on to the money issue ("This would take significant new dollars") and Councillor Miller was quick to agree. But neither of them expressed any concern to other costs. Like the continued risk to those (inc. large numbers of children) who have to use the street sidewalks instead of the park's pathways, and the significantly added inconvenience of longer travel distances/times.

Controller Hubert expressed a concern about the possibility that plows might rip up the sod, but he also ignored the other costs.

Mr. Leckie did raise a question of safety, but it wasn't a concern for children or other pedestrians. Instead, he worried that "it would be unsafe for the operators... these people operate mostly in the dark." [like a lot of Council members]

Mind you, he did subsequently qualify that concern by suggesting that it could be resolved if the city was to start lighting the pathways (something that I've been advocating for a long time) and if it made the pathways easier to maintain. Wider?

The most ridiculous statement of the whole ETC meeting came during this discussion from Controller Hume, when he asserted that this proposal would be "pitting neighbourhood against neighbourhood."

As an active member of the Glen Cairn & Pond Mills Community Association, I scoff at that assertion. What pits neighbourhoods against one another, if anything, is the half-ass way that Council supports them. Hell, I can't even get the city to agree to publish the locations/dates/times of community association meetings on it's website!

In the end, the request did not win the committee's support because of a tie vote. However, it will still proceed to next Monday's meeting of the full Council. The following explanation comes from Councillor Baechler:

"When a matter is split at committee (3 for 3 against) it goes to council without a recommendation and becomes part of the report clauses. At council you can only ask questions of report clauses. In order to have the issue debated at council, the chair, or another councillor has to ask for leave to debate the issue. This is voted on by council. If the request for leave is not supported by the majority then no motion can be put on the floor and the issue goes no further. If leave is granted then a motion is put on the floor by the chair. In this case, since the chair did not support clearing the snow, she may put a motion on the floor to “take no action”. Council would then have to defeat this motion. If there is not majority support to defeat this motion then nothing will happen. If there is a majority vote against the motion to take no action, another motion could be put on the floor to take action. Council will then vote on this at the outcome is final."

This is not simply a White Oaks issue. Nor is it just an issue of concern for pedestrians. Anybody who values alternative transportation should want to see Council start to put some money where their collective mouth is by supporting this reasonable request. Whether you're a pedestrian, a London Transit user, a bicyclist, or even a skateboarder, it is in your best interest to send a message to the Council members before Monday's meeting letting them know that you support this. And the more people who attend the Monday meeting as a show of support the better as well.