Top News

LETTER: Cheers and Jeers section included inaccurate information

Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - 123RF Stock Photo

Having read the Cheers and Jeers section in the Nov. 16 edition, I wish to point out some inaccurate information that has been presented to the general public through this column. I feel that these comments are incorrect and misleading and as such need some clarification.

FACT: The city is not “waffling” over a decision already made. The city has appropriately responded to an official request for reconsideration lodged by the residents of Southview Estates. The city is simply following due process as the reconsideration request was determined to pass the required legal threshold since the residents were able to show that additional information has come forward since the decision was originally reached on June 8, 2020. Furthermore, it has been determined that incorrect information was provided to councillors at the time they were asked for their decision. This is not waffling – this is the city abiding by the bylaws that are established to protect the citizens of Charlottetown;

FACT: It is incorrect to state “Regardless of council’s ultimate decision on this, the matter is going to the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission”. This is simply not true. While there has been an IRAC appeal filed, that appeal is held in abeyance until it has been determined as to whether or not the issue can be resolved at the city council level. It has always been the residents’ wish that this matter could be resolved with a reasonable outcome at the city level without forcing the residents to incur the tremendous costs and effort involved in launching an IRAC appeal hearing;

FACT: The residents are not fighting the project (ie. apartments), but rather, where and how the traffic from the proposed buildings will enter and exit. To state that the residents oppose the project implies to your readers that our neighbourhood is against development. This has been made clear to the city, the developer and in fact The Guardian reporters covering this ongoing issue;

FACT: Certain councillors have implied that regardless of the decision, the developer can build any one of a number of businesses on the lot in question. This is purely anecdotal and not necessarily based on fact. The use of scenarios like cannabis store and motorcycle club are merely scare tactics used by a certain councillor to put fear in the hearts of many senior residents of Southview Estates. There are questionable legalities surrounding the consolidation of these non-conforming lots and what, if anything, can be done on these parcels of land. As well, the developer does not own the land in question and has no building permits in hand – to imply otherwise constitutes inaccurate reporting.

I would hope that in future, more detailed research and thought might be required when commenting on such a controversial issue that is currently under consideration.

John Barrett,
Southview Estates Resident

Did this story inform or enhance your perspective on this subject?
1 being least likely, and 10 being most likely

Recent Stories