"A real demonstration of commitment to the environment and the health of our community"

A letter from Michael Purves-Smith of Elmira to Woolwich Township:

"I am writing to express my concern on learning of the proposed subdivision of parcels of the wooded areas of the Victoria Glen park. My understanding is that the Region recognizes that there will be substantial population growth in Waterloo region and that this will occur soon. It is, as I understand it, urging the municipalities to try to find non- agricultural land to use to accommodate new residential growth and that it is recommending a higher population density where possible.

As a resident of Elmira for almost thirty five years, I have become intimately acquainted with its landscape and I know that there is now very little non-agricultural space available for residential development. That being said, it also makes absolutely no sense to use precious wood and marshland for residential growth.

We should all, as concerned citizens of Elmira, agree that our financial interests are not served by alienating this woodland. How does one assess the true value of that woodland to future generations? Certainly, the figure would vastly exceed that of the short-term profits realized from the sale of 22 serviced lots.

Where will the residents of Elmira find spots to walk in the woods in the future? It may well be that none of our town planners feel any need of this kind of solitude, but that does not mean that there are not countless residents of our town who do. It may be that our town planners feel that it is not important what happens to the flora and fauna that make their homes in the Victoria Glen.

Certainly, there is a wide spread feeling that we have a duty of stewardship for our environment and its denizens. Perhaps our town planners would argue that it doesn't matter if we cut down some of the only old growth forest left in our area. I doubt that there is any old growth forest in the space proposed for subdivision, but removing this treed area will certainly put serious stress on the adjacent space which very likely does.

Perhaps our town planners dispute the role of trees in cleaning the air that we breathe. However, the literature suggests that the role of wooded areas is crucial to purifying our air. As you can tell, I would argue that there are many reasons why it is quite simply wrong to subdivide these parcels. We have lost quite a lot of the last woodlands in Woolwich over the past few years, most recently for something as ephemeral as a Wal-Mart, heaven help us.

The township has included in its vision statement under Growth Management the following statement:
'Continue trails development as part of the local community planning process and involve community organizations in focus group sessions to ensure that sustainable community development and environmental stewardship remain priorities.'

Under Healthy Communities we find:
'Work closely with community environmental organizations and continue the commitment to environmental protection and enhancement initiatives.'

How does subdividing some of the last wooded space in our town tally with these statements? Are we to assume that they are no more than boiler plate? I want to point out that the area in question is adjacent to the only significant wet lands in Elmira. These depend for their environmental stability in some important ways on the adjacent woodlot which is already smaller than it should be.

I would like to respectfully suggest that Woolwich and the town of Elmira should concentrate on medium rise, high efficiency apartments in the older part of town, beginning with the core commercial space near the corner of Church and Arthur. This would help to rejuvenate the centre of the town, which has been seriously mismanaged over the past few years. If necessary, rezone some of the unused industrial lands at the North east part of town for residential use.

The other side of the coin would be a real demonstration of commitment to the environment and the health of our community. On the Woolwich web site, the Victoria Glen is called a park. It is time to show some real commitment to that concept. We should have a park that extends from Bolender Park to the wet lands to the west of Snider Avenue. There would be a bottle neck at the west end of Bolender Park, but it is possible to build a trail along the south side of the river under the Arthur street bridge. The trail could then connect with the existing Victoria Glen trail and form an important link in the proposed Elmira ring trail. It would pass through a remarkable variety of habitats.

Future generations will bless the foresight of our current council. They will use the trail for walking, cycling, and cross-country skiing. It is not unreasonable to hope that Elmira will attract visitors who will come for its lovely riverside park and nearby beautiful gardens (Doug Mooder and Flora Terra). This would not be without cost, one which would be temporarily increased by the decision not to sell these lots, but the cost of trying to remediate the damage in the future is bound to be infinitely greater.

Finally, consider for a moment, is there another place in Elmira that is naturally park land? Let's be generous in the allocation of park space. To diminish it undervalues ourselves and our future in the name of short term gain. As to the frogs, turtles, weasels (yes there are some and maybe even river otter), and muskrats who make Larch creek their home, they have no chance unless we pay much closer attention to what we do with our riverside resources and woodlots.

Sincerely,
Michael Purves-Smith
Treasurer, APT environment"