Here’s a thought or two about a few different topics in this week’s paper. The debate over transit has been active for well over 10 years now with various mayors, councillors and candidates making, or losing, their political careers on this very topic. Cochrane has in the past very clearly stated that they were not in favor of a transit system but in the last election the public seemed to acknowledge that Cochrane would benefit from some form of public transit and that the current secured GreenTRIP and Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) sources of funding are a unique opportunity to make public transit a reality. I will agree that there are some legitimate concerns about public transit. For example, is Cochrane ready for transit, will the cost be too much? Are we attempting to spend outside of our means? What will be the cost of such a service? Any increases in property taxes always needs careful consideration. I would first seek to have as much information known before I I question the wisdom of those who appear to have made up their minds about public transit before the full economic facts are known, especially when many of these answers will be available prior to the actual vote to proceed. I have always argued that methodical planning based on fact, not conjecture and misinformation, is needed for decisions regarding public transit. I believe that previous mayors and/or town councillors have missed many opportunities to prepare for the inevitable inclusion of some form of public transit. I personally find it inexcusable that basic planning for transit was not included in the approval of previous housing developments. If this planning had taken place, we would now be benefiting from this long term approach to planning vs. continued divisive debates. The current committee examining public transit should have been formed years ago. This committee’s mandate should have included the following: • Strategies to encourage and plan for alternative funding options and/or the possibility of provincial funding • Planning for traffic infrastructure and town growth specifically relating to public transit • A clear set of conditions under which Cochrane would vote to proceed with public Transit • Options for public transit • Opportunities for public engagement throughout this process. This could have included the public plebiscite that is now being championed by Mr. Reed without the delay that would now likely to jeopardize the current Green TRIP and MSI funding. Then there is the public consultation on yet another Jones Estate development. I am not in favour of any development where land stability and drainage issues remain a concern and/or where multiple geological surveys recommending that no development take place are suddenly ignored after a developer pays another firm to find information supporting development. The Town of Cochrane is currently facing at least two lawsuits that I am aware of because it allowed construction to proceed where there were known stability and drainage issues. When do we say enough is enough and stop putting residents of established neighbourhoods through more uncertainty?! Then there is the public consultations concerning the Tri-Site parcels of land. I am glad to hear that consideration is being given to the relocation of the Senior’s on the Bow group, a bike skills park and an arts centre. I also hope consideration is being given for further services for our seniors, a centrally located public transportation building if one is needed, a relocation of the Cochrane Public Llibrary and inner city green space(s) and/or a park. Green space has been shown time and time again to promote both intrinsic value to a community as well as lead to higher property values for owners. If we fail to plan, then we plan to fail. Remember, we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get this right for the present and future generations. Please ensure we protect the rodeo grounds and surrounding play areas until, at the very least, a better fit that helps the rodeo grow is found. Please, let’s not include condos for any part of this planning. I hope that a long-term, holistic approach is being used for these essential pieces of land. I hope we plan for the future. This could also include a consideration that considers the domino effect that could start with relocating the library. It is too bad council failed to act in time before the old pool was torn down. I still shudder at the apparent lack of fact-based financial reporting that should have been part of the discussion by the previous council before the old pool was torn down. What was the rush when careful consideration for the possible re-purposing of this building was to occur in the near future? What would now be possible and how much money could we have saved if this building was still available? Dan Cunin
