Comment 118474

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted May 12, 2016 at 11:27:25 in reply to Comment 118473

Councillor Whitehead withdrew it and replaced it with another notice of motion asking staff to evaluate "urbanizing" streets on the mountain (adding sidewalks etc.) and pointing to increasing support for more "urban" street designs.

This sounds like a good idea that suggests he has suddenly decided to support the kind of complete streets initiatives he has consistently opposed in the lower city until you get to his completely gratuitous attack on efforts for safer more complete streets in the lower city:

WHEREAS, the city has a responsibility to prioritize fundamental safety in neighbourhoods over enhancements in other areas that are already adequately urbanized;

which makes it clear that this motion is aimed not really at making streets safer and more complete on the mountain, but is just another attempt to undermine similar efforts in the lower city. It really is just a continuation of his indirect attacks on the Aberdeen proposal that he been opposing since last year with a string of different motions and most recently with the motion that was so offensive to Kirkendall residents.

Who is he to tell residents in other parts of the city that they are "already adequately urbanized" (whatever that means)?

And why does this need to be a choice? He can work for complete streets in his ward, and he should let residents and councillors in other wards do the same. This doesn't need to be a zero sum divisive issue!

Remember that Councillor Whitehead has had over 13 years to work to add sidewalks and crosswalks to streets in his ward. Why claim this is an absolute priority now that should trump similar efforts elsewhere?

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2016-05-12 11:49:02

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools