Add new comment

Comment from a resident via email:

I am not able to attend either meeting coming up. Are these open-house info-type meetings? What process will take place other than these meetings regarding usage changes? Will there be a vote? I ask because of a very similar experience on the outskirts of Edmonton. An area that was rural acreages was allowed industrial use. I can tell you that in a short time frame, the little area was swamped in gravel trucks, backhoes, tractor trailers etc. Property values plummeted, and so did the lifestyle the original owners thought they were buying into. This was unfair. I cannot see why any such change would be allowed in Area F-it's bad enough as it is, due to loose by-laws. There are some bonafide junkyards in Area F (West Bench) that escape any by-law penalty. How can a by-law enforcement officer look at a collection of broken hot tubs, truck bodies, scrap iron etc and say "Looks okay to me"?  I know Roza is kept busy, but I also think this is a result of a far too loose approach to enforcing existing by-laws. It might be called salami evolution. Let one thing go, then another goes, then another, and then precedent is used to justify further erosion of original intent. Let's reverse it for a moment. An industrial area is slowly encroached on by residential owners, who graduate to demanding that industrial use be stopped. Those original industrial owners would be none too happy, and this is no different. To encourage more industrial usage is to admit the rural lifestyle intent of West Bench is done like dinner.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Registered users of this site do not have to do this.