Maple Ridge residents trashed a plan to convert a single family lot to a townhouse complex, citing a number of reasons. I will respond here to each and every one of them:
1. Concerns about the fact that the area only has one access route, which is a problem in the case of emergencies.This is easily mitigated. I imagine the very act of constructing this complex will bring in multiple roads.
2. Concerns about increased traffic on narrow roads.This is because people doesn't want a wider road to accomodate traffic because they prefer the quiet. Meaning other people shouldn't move there even though they did the same thing only a few years ago.
3. Lack of transit.This is due to the lack of population density, which they fight so hard to ensure.
4. Increased street parking.Only people who live in houses has the right to park on streets, or so they think.
5. Further strain on Yennadon Elementary School.Enrollment is falling because people are having fewer kids. This is hogwash.
6. Concerns expressed about the need for better protection of wildlife corridors and preservation of green space.Green space can be better preserved if people lived closer together. This is hypocrisy.
7. People arguing their property values will decline.Boo friggen hoo.
Here are some things people actually wrote in about.
George Popp wrote that "had I any inkling whatsoever that a development of this intensity would rise up in front of me" he wouldn't have bought a house there.George Popp is anti-development. He should go live in Africa.
"There is plenty of scope for increased density in the core of Maple Ridge," he said. "Putting high-density housing as proposed here would only create more car intensive commuter traffic on crowded country roads."So it's okay if other places develop, but damn it if it happens to be near the house he lives in. Can anyone be more of a NIMBY?
Brook Calhoon wrote that traffic on 236 is a "death trap" and 113 Avenue is also unsafe.You know what's safe? Having people live closer together and walk rather than drive to where you need to go. Oh I forgot, Brook Calhoon moved to Maple Ridge so that she can drive around on country roads and it's perfectly safe if she were the only one doing it.
She wrote 51 townhouses "makes us worried what kind of people it will attract."No Brook renters do not bring crime. No one wants to live in a dump whether they rent or own. There is no reason people can't respect other people's right to live peacefully.
"Will it be renters who don't care as much about their homes as we all do? Will it bring crime to our neighbourhood?"
Jason and Carla Banbury argued that the development would be "counterintuitive" to Smart Growth because it would increase the carbon footprint without public transit and it will increase vehicle traffic.Jason and Carla Banbury should look up what Smart Growth is because their argument is "counterintuitive" to what they're saying. Having more density actually decreases carbon footprint because infrastructure would be concentrated rather than spread out to service the same amount of people. Having public transit requires enough people taking them at stops most rider can get to on foot. This requires more density. This argument does not make sense.
Christopher Bester argued the townhouse complex would be "aesthetically unbearable" and would negatively impact his property value.Christopher Bester does not care about the environment as much as his property value.
"With townhouses the amount of renters in the neighbourhood would inevitably increase in which case pride in ownership would inevitably increase in which case pride in ownership would decrease proportionally, crime rates and nuisance complaints would likely increase and traffic congestion would intensify substantially," he said.Pride in home ownership is overrated. I wonder how much pride he will have when his property loses value like he said it would. I live in a townhouse. I have not heard of any crime here in the past 4 years, nor have i raised or received any complaints. In fact a townhouse may actually increase security since there are more pairs of eyeballs on possible intruders. Traffic congestion is coming whether you like it or not. The goal should be to ameliorate it rather than fight it off. I am fairly certain Christopher Bester is a driver who is part of the traffic congestion he speak of.
Parking on the street would also be "unsightly" and the development would ruin the "unique synergy with nature" because of "overdevelopment." Karlis Kesans wrote that "existing property owners on 133 Avenue will have to look at congested housing across the road."Karlis Kesans wants to stop people from moving into Maple Ridge, even though she did so herself. She seems to think it's okay to turn greenspace into single family subdivisions that she currently occupies, but not okay to turn the same greenspace into townhouse lots so we don't have to use up as much greenspace. The "unique synergy with nature" just means that she wants to waste a large track of land for her viewing pleasures. With housing prices the way they are townhomes are hardly "overdevelopment." If anything we need more density to house the population growth. Again it's okay for her house to be in the scenary but other houses apparently are not.
"This type of development could result in potential rental property in the area which could possibly attract a transient population. Transients do not have the ownership mentality the owner residents have which could result in property neglect. If this ends up being a medium to low rental development unsavory characters could move into the area which could result in escalation of crime in the area," continued the letter.Karlis clearly believes that she does not deserve to live with "medium to low" rental developments and unsavory characters live only in town homes. Note that plenty of "unsavory characters" live in houses, in fact, a lot of these "unsavory characters" own multiple homes. Also it is not uncommon for single family units to rent all or part of the house out. Lastly neglect has to do with the owner as much as it has to do with the renter.
Lyn Peters said the development in Silver Valley over the last 15 years has been "nothing more than standard urban sprawl, has nothing to do with Smart Growth and has twisted the intentions and plans of all involved."
She described development as "standard clear cut and blast" and said there are no parks, equestrian, bike or pedestrian routes or "interlinked greenways."Lyn Peters is right, however this rezoning is a small step in the right direction.
Anita Hoggard said Rock Ridge is "a more upscale area" and the townhouses are not in keeping with that.
"Our decision to move from Port Moody to Maple Ridge was because we absolutely loved the trees, wilderness and the pure peacefulness of Rock Ridge," said Hoggard.Anita Hoggard think she is better than everyone who does not live in single family homes surrounded with tracks of land. Townhouses anywhere near her is an affront to her high social status.
Paul Wild wrote that he loves the "beautiful, scenic and environmentally friendly neighbourhood" and he "can't imagine replacing these beautiful trees, graceful deer, and all the bears, coyotes and birds with extra vehicles that will be lining the side of 133 Avenue."
Paul Wild is part of his own problem. If he truly loves the "beautiful, scenic, and environmentally friendly neighbourhood" so much, he should move away from there.
I hope council approves this. The Nimbyism of this town is through the roof.