theskeptic
What is the possible justification for putting an apartment block in Berrymore?  Here we have an upscale single family residential development complete with park reserves and natural trees in the river area.  The proposal is to put a multi-family structure (an apartment building) complete with an underground garage adjacent to the river.  To do so, the developer proposes to trade a low lying piece of land adjacent to the river for a segment of the existing park.  All of the foregoing raises the following questions"

  1. Why should we have this multi family in-fill in an existing up-scale residential development?
  2. Why is Council contemplating trading valuable park land for what is basically swampland?
  3. Why is the City doing this when it is overwhelmingly opposed by the residents of that district and has little traction with the rest of the community?
Of course, Cathy Heron's position is "understandable".  In the past she has said that "individualism is a disease" and more recently said the people of Braeside mistakenly think they own the area simply because they live there.  So if you are that extreme left wing in your thinking I guess you don't respect the concept of private property and assume that the City bureaucrats know what's good for the area  better than do the residents.

What, of course, is not discussed is the following:  
  1. Why should City Hall be dictating to the residents of Braeside and in effect disturbing the quality of their neighborhood?
  2. Given this area was beautifully designed and developed years ago, what makes the current administration think their ad hoc in-fill to that area is an improvement?
  3. Since every Braeside resident bought into this secluded neighborhood on the expectation that it's character would remain unchanged, what right does Council now have to make fundamental changes to THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT? 
You won't appreciate this heavy handedness when it comes to your neighborhood.  However, if it is not stopped it will be in your neighborhood soon.
Quote 6 0
Kevin
theskeptic wrote:
Of course, Cathy Heron's position is "understandable".  In the past she has said that "individualism is a disease" and more recently said the people of Braeside mistakenly think they own the area simply because they live there.


Can anyone provide me with a source to these two quotes? I would like to know the context of the conversation they came out of.

Thanks
Kevin
 
Quote 0 1
danapop
theskeptic wrote:
What is the possible justification for putting an apartment block in Berrymore?  Here we have an upscale single family residential development complete with park reserves and natural trees in the river area.  The proposal is to put a multi-family structure (an apartment building) complete with an underground garage adjacent to the river.  To do so, the developer proposes to trade a low lying piece of land adjacent to the river for a segment of the existing park.  All of the foregoing raises the following questions"

  1. Why should we have this multi family in-fill in an existing up-scale residential development?
  2. Why is Council contemplating trading valuable park land for what is basically swampland?
  3. Why is the City doing this when it is overwhelmingly opposed by the residents of that district and has little traction with the rest of the community?
Of course, Cathy Heron's position is "understandable".  In the past she has said that "individualism is a disease" and more recently said the people of Braeside mistakenly think they own the area simply because they live there.  So if you are that extreme left wing in your thinking I guess you don't respect the concept of private property and assume that the City bureaucrats know what's good for the area  better than do the residents.

What, of course, is not discussed is the following:  
  1. Why should City Hall be dictating to the residents of Braeside and in effect disturbing the quality of their neighborhood?
  2. Given this area was beautifully designed and developed years ago, what makes the current administration think their ad hoc in-fill to that area is an improvement?
  3. Since every Braeside resident bought into this secluded neighborhood on the expectation that it's character would remain unchanged, what right does Council now have to make fundamental changes to THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT? 
You won't appreciate this heavy handedness when it comes to your neighborhood.  However, if it is not stopped it will be in your neighborhood soon.


I've known Cathy a while now and consider her a friend. We have had plenty of discussion and disagreement on density targets as a whole. I have never heard her say individualism is a disease or people of braeside or mistaken that they don't own the area they just live there.

These are conserning comments. Would you be so kind as to provide a source? If true, this needs to be addressed.
Quote 0 3
EnoughAllready
Yes, she tweeted it around the last civic election.
Quote 2 0
Head Honcho
Yep, Heron definitely made that statement after some type of a municipal gathering she attended. I want to recall it was in Leduc, but I cannot be sure. It was on Twitter and picked up and circulated through the community on social media. I also seem to recall she used the same term in a council meeting while reporting on her attendance at whatever meeting or convention she attended. No time to research it right now, but I will try to dig out the exact details. No doubt in my mind the that quote was in fact made by Heron.
Quote 1 0
theskeptic
Dana:  She definitely said "individualism is a disease" as she was parroting some left-wing speaker she heard at a conference.  Secondly if you don't think she made the comments about Braeside residents ... check with W. Whitney. 

However, why would you be concerned about Cathy after all:
  1. she voted to keep Draper as she considered him great at his job;
  2. She voted for the road to nowhere because she apparently lacked the economic common sense to know those lots were unmarketable unless sold at a dramatic discount;
  3. She thought she should get a raise when the province is in a recession
  4. She voted to put the Fr. School in Errin Ridge
  5. She's in favour of the Braeside development even though 99% of those at the town hall voted against the proposal
  6. etc....etc....


Quote 3 0
danapop
I see my request for a citation leads you off on a tangent.

Fair enough. I'll wait for someone to find the quote then if they come up I'll take appropriate action.
Quote 0 1
theskeptic
Kevin/Dana:  sure I can provide you the source of these two quotes .... it's Cathy Heron.  

Since she's your pal .... so just text her for confirmation.
Quote 1 0
Kevin
theskeptic wrote:
Kevin:  sure I can provide you the source of these two quotes .... it's Cathy Heron.  

Since she's your pal .... so just text her for confirmation.  
on

Thanks Cameron! I knew I could depend on you.

 
Quote 0 0
EnoughAllready
Dana, she indeed tweeted that. I don't know how anyone can prove it. It was 3-4 years ago....... and to be honest, who would even think of taking a picture of it at the time.

So I guess without the actual tweet, those of us who read the tweet can only tell you what we saw.
Quote 1 0
danapop
Yeah that's pretty much what I expected you to say.

Quote 0 2
danapop
If it's on her Twitter, I'll find it with search algorithms.
Quote 0 1
EnoughAllready
Good luck!
Quote 1 0
Ted Durham
She indeed tweeted that.  It was pointed out to me by Council member MacKay.  He was quite astonished she had done this.  

Dana, you can deny, deny, deny.  But she did say it on Twitter.  We were trying to figure out what she meant!  It was a very weird comment.  Too many witnesses saw the post, it is tough to deny.

Quote 2 0
EnoughAllready
June 24th, 2013.

She deleted it from her page but I found it by looking at those who replied to the original tweet.

There you are Dana.
Quote 3 0
theskeptic
So now after the twitter/facebook type distractions by Dana et al, the interesting issue is .... why would the City be pushing for a development in an area in which those who built the neighborhood .... who live in the neighborhood ...  are strongly opposed?   Secondly, why would the City partake in a land swap in which the two parcels of land are not equivalences?  Thirdly, why is the botanical city pursuing another development adjacent to the river instead of preserving that natural habitat?
Quote 4 0
Head Honcho
EnoughAllready wrote:
June 24th, 2013. She deleted it from her page but I found it by looking at those who replied to the original tweet. There you are Dana.


Could you please supply a link to that EA? It would be very helpful for all to see real proof.

Interesting that June 24th, 2013 is suspiciously missing from three tweets in particular. See last line of each search result below:

Screen Shot 2017-02-08 at 6.52.20 PM.png
A
lso of interest the very next night was the infamous FC comment by the mayor at the community hall to Hennigar and Bermanski on the 25th. That happens to be my birthday and that incident is burned into my brain and the two words uttered have been confirmed by many people since then.
Quote 2 0
OMG
I am the one who saw it with my own surprised eyes and exposed the tweet because it was really odd. Sick of you people calling others liars. I do not lie. I always post credible info.
Quote 1 0
danapop
OMG I didn't call anyone a liar. I asked if someone could show me where the information was.
Quote 0 1
EnoughAllready
This is the best I can do. I don't know how to do the link.

He's the picture I took of my computer screen.

The "inaction is a plague" part was a surprise. It's been awhile since she tweeted it.

I don't know what it means. I assume that's why she is pushing so hard for chickens and bees?

Because to not do anything, would be inaction?
Quote 0 0
Head Honcho
Thanks EA, that provides concrete proof. I did a bit of work on the image and here it is again.

Screen Shot 2017-02-08 at 7.33.11 PM.png
J
ust as I recall it.
Quote 1 0
Kevin
Head Honcho wrote:
Thanks EA, that provides concrete proof. I did a bit of work on the image and here it is again.

Screen Shot 2017-02-08 at 7.33.11 PM.png
J
ust as I recall it.


Interesting that Tim didn't include Cathy's reply to Cam. As well, that the comment was made attending a Rotary International Convention in 2013. Interesting that the tweet was not deleted.
Screen Shot 2017-02-08 at 7.23.24 PM.png
 
Quote 1 0
EnoughAllready
Interesting that she deleted the tweet. Very interesting.

What's your point. My point is that if she thought the tweet was justified, why delete it.
Obviously she realized it wasn't.

Nice try though.
Quote 1 0
EnoughAllready
PS. You seem to have found that tweet quickly Kevin after you waited so long for others to show you proof.

Almost like you just sat back hoping nobody would find the tweet you knew existed.
Quote 1 0
danapop
Thanks Kevin and EnoughAllready!  I was putting my wee kids to bed and you all did the hunting for me [smile]

I just verified that the tweet has NOT been deleted.  It is still here and visible.  

Using this search Function you can see it:
from:cathyheron since:2013-06-23 until:2013-06-25

Quote 0 0