Re: Councillors ongoing objections to trail adjacent to rail line

Thank you for your ongoing coverage of this important issue. I read with interest Councillor Rose’s and Wilson’s continuing objections to the project.

Councillor Rose said she is philosophically opposed to the project. Perhaps time prohibited her from elaborating what type of philosophy it is that leads to her objection. But if it is a profound philosophy that is the basis of her objection I repeat that it is odd she is only now revealing it. Councillor Rose repeated her concerns about safety and cost, but more on that later.

Councillor Wilson advises that he still has safety and economic concerns.

A quick review of the Council minutes for all of 2009 and part of 2008 reveal that this project has been before Council art every major point of its development from conception through applying for grants for funding, through design, through budgeting etc. The project received Council support at all of these critical stages. I counted at least ten different occasions from late 2008 through Feb 2010 when the project was before Council in one form or another. All motions regarding the project made on these occasions were carried.

There were no objections raised that were recorded in the minutes that I could see.

I would think that if one had deep philosophical concerns about a project one would voice them very early on in the project life and try to make your case at that time rather than waste everyone’s time and energy on the next phases of the work.

What is most surprising and in fact disturbing is Councillor Rose’s statement that she in fact is “not interested” in evidence from other municipalities and studies that rails with trails have a very good safety record.

Good grief! What a thing to say! What does that tell us about her own decision making process? It forces one to conclude that she simply has closed her mind to any rational thinking process. Maybe she was misquoted.

It appears as though it might be a case of “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up.” Or perhaps she thinks Orangeville residents are more accident prone, or careless than residents in other locales that seem to be able to use trails near active rail lines without incurring any major injuries.

If cost was a factor in Councillor Rose’s thinking why did she not raise her voice when staff sought approval to apply for government financial assistance for the project? Why did she not say something when the Federal and Provincial government announced approval of funding?

Councillor Wilson expressed concern about the potential economic impact of having a trail adjacent to the rail line.

The potential owners of the rail line were made aware of the Town’s plan to establish a trail adjacent to the rail line from the outset of purchase negotiations. It was included in the terms of the offer to purchase and as far as we know the prospective buyers raised no concerns or objections. They were contacted by the Orangeville Citizen a week or so again when this came up and a company representative advised that are in effect neutral on the trail issue.

Hopefully rational thinking at Council will prevail on this issue, and enough votes on Council will develop to support allowing the project to move ahead.

Graham Burke

Orangeville