Impartial
When I wrote in the Free Press last week: "[t]hese [design] regulations must be able to stand under the rule of law -- impartial, no matter who the builder is or which way the political winds are blowing," this is what I meant:
"And to overcome a shortage of parking stalls on the site, the City of Winnipeg is insisting that Stonebridge incorporate a car-sharing program into the development — something that has never been required before in Winnipeg but that Stonebridge president Kurtis Sawatzky said the firm is willing to do."
A great idea. But it is too bad for Stonebridge that they are private and for-profit. If they were an arrogant bureaucracy going about the "public good," they could have had the City assemble enough land for them to built a giant parkade for 200 parking stalls, facing right onto River Avenue. The Planning Department could doze through the process, no public consultation would need to happen, and City council could give them $500,000 in tax credits. If only.
"And to overcome a shortage of parking stalls on the site, the City of Winnipeg is insisting that Stonebridge incorporate a car-sharing program into the development — something that has never been required before in Winnipeg but that Stonebridge president Kurtis Sawatzky said the firm is willing to do."
A great idea. But it is too bad for Stonebridge that they are private and for-profit. If they were an arrogant bureaucracy going about the "public good," they could have had the City assemble enough land for them to built a giant parkade for 200 parking stalls, facing right onto River Avenue. The Planning Department could doze through the process, no public consultation would need to happen, and City council could give them $500,000 in tax credits. If only.
1 Comments:
too true.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home