As this letter would be in some ways be warning Mississaugans as to the dangers that City Hall and the Mayor poses to their communities, the Missing News will not likely print it.
Mississauga News
ATTN: Letter to the Editor.
RE: OMB Hearing.
Dear Sir: Feb. 11, 2004
Paul Szabo and David Culham, met again last night at an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), hearing under very different circumstances then they first meeting and efforts to serve the community. Today, Mr. Szabo is a sitting M.P., Mr. Culham was the Chair of the OMB Hearing and the issue was close to both their hearts. Mr. Szabo was standing up for the rights of taxpayers, their community and the Cawthra Bush. The issue is the City of Mississauga stated intent at eliminating the Northmount Community that is the buffer zone for the Cawthra Bush. A low density community that is responsible for the Cawthra Bush still being an Old-Growth ecosystem, a Provincially Significant Wetlands with a Federally declared Threatened species - a success story in an Urban environment. Mr. Szabo has spoken at 3 meetings so far to address this issue and its injustice. His aid has been extraordinary; hundreds of mailings have been sent out to those in our ratepayers area, informing them and greatly increasing public input; he has missed a vote in Parliament to speak last night; he got us an extra public meeting due to the lateness of City notices. And boy did Mr. Szabo get raked over the coals by the developers lawyer, complete with a trick question (or maybe the lawyer just didn't know the facts), but he stood his ground and by his example many others followed to oppose the City/Developer tag team. Some quotes from the Mayor (that the developer agrees with), that we should all be concerned about!
"She advised them that although they did not want change in their community, change was inevitable and the large lots some day would also be developed as intensification and redevelopment was occurring across the City."
"that as the City moves into another phase of growth, redevelopment of existing older uses will occur and the residents must be prepared to accept more such changes in the mature areas of the City."
"intensification", means getting rid of the existing community and the resulting over population spells the end to many environmentally significant areas. Maybe it is a good business decision on the part of the City, as it will profit greatly but should the City be treating our homes and communities as its assets?
- 2 -
I am willing to discuss my letter with you, in case the wording seems a little ambiguous or you want a request explained. My phone number is ....
Sincerely yours, Donald Barber, President, FCB & Chair, CRRA.