Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Westmount residents go to Court of Appeal to stop daycare from opening

  1. #1

    Default Westmount residents go to Court of Appeal to stop daycare from opening

    A pure form of Nimby-ism. Who possibly thinks more kids and family friendly options are bad for your community. It is such a strange argument.

    Also, this line drives me insane, "One woman, a resident of 42 years, warned allowing the daycare would set such a dangerous precedent, it would only be a matter of time before the historic residential street “goes the way of Old Strathcona and Oliver, where the only value is the dirt under the house.”

    As a resident of the Old Strathcona area, I don't have any idea what the heck she's talking about.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...e-from-opening

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,533

    Default

    A nuisance lawsuit. I would hope the Court of Appeal considers awarding costs against the homeowners for bringing such nonsense.

  3. #3
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,671

    Default

    Three people opposed, while there's probably a hundred families desperate for childcare within 10 blocks of the place. Terrible that three people are holding this up for totally specious reasons.

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,819

    Default

    Ryan McCann is one of three neighbours appealing the decision. He said it’s not because he doesn’t like children, he just doesn’t want 120 of them 30 metres from his house.

    “The size is just way out of line with what the neighbourhood can support,” he said.
    This has to be taken out of context somehow. There's no way someone could say something so daft.
    The kids already live in the neighbourhood, ergo the neighbourhood already supports it.

  5. #5

    Default

    This is beyond moronic.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  6. #6

    Default

    the scale and scope is out of line with the neighborhood? Where did we recently hear this exact same arguement......

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corina5070 View Post
    A pure form of Nimby-ism. Who possibly thinks more kids and family friendly options are bad for your community. It is such a strange argument.

    Also, this line drives me insane, "One woman, a resident of 42 years, warned allowing the daycare would set such a dangerous precedent, it would only be a matter of time before the historic residential street “goes the way of Old Strathcona and Oliver, where the only value is the dirt under the house.”

    As a resident of the Old Strathcona area, I don't have any idea what the heck she's talking about.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...e-from-opening
    Not agreeing with her because I love density, but I believe she's "anti-highrise" and "anti-mixed use".
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  8. #8
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    YEG: Alberta Avenue, Boyle Street, McCauley | YLW: Shannon Lake | PHX: San Tan Valley
    Posts
    805

    Default

    Westmount Architectural Heritage Area Community Initiative

    The following uses are prescribed for lands designated DC1 pursuant to Section 710.3 of the Land Use Bylaw.

    a) Single Detached Housing
    b) Minor Home Occupations
    c) Religious Assembly, where lawfully existing on a site in the District at the effective date of this Bylaw, on the same site only.
    d) Limited Group Homes
    e) Group Homes
    f) Foster Homes
    g) Child Care Services
    h) Major Home Occupations

    Would they prefer a group home?

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,276

    Default

    Ryan McCann posted a comment after the Journal article:

    Admittedly, it does not speak for all Westmount neighbours BUT a petition signed by over 100 of them does. Nearly all agreed that a daycare would be a great value-add for the community, but had requested on numerous occasions the Operator reduce his numbers to 40-50 children - a number that would reduce traffic concerns, provide a safe pedestrian environment for Westmount children (and children attending the daycare), all while supporting the community. This was flatly refused by the operator at the Appeal. And you're completely off base on the parking - especially as it doesn't impact you directly and your little ones don't live adjacent to it. Further, there was no transportation study provided by the Developer, despite a pedestrian fatality one block over from this property last year, two uncontrolled intersections bordering it, and 80-90 vehicles 2x a day unloading little ones. I'm sure you'll agree 107 and 111 ave, and 124 and 127 street have posed significant traffic issues for Westmount.
    His argument is still very weak. "Oh, no...what about the children!"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •