PROTESTING the Stanhope Airport Expansion
INTERESTED IN INFRASTRUCTURE CANADA CARRYING OUT A THOROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BEFORE GIVING A GREEN LIGHT TO THE AIRPORT EXPANSION PROJECT?
| CLICK HERE |
PROTESTING THE AIRPORT EXPANSION
GO TO LETTERS SUPPORTING THE STANHOPE AIRPORT EXPANSION
____________________________________________
LETTERS WRITTEN TO COUNCILLOR DIANE GRIFFIN, A.H. COUNCIL, MINISTERS, and NEWSPAPERS
FROM OXTONGUE LAKE TAXPAYERS AND OTHERS
PROTESTING
THE PROPOSED STANHOPE AIRPORT EXPANSION
Below is a daily-updated archive of texts from correspondence written by Oxtongue Lake taxpayers and others to our Council representative Diane Griffin, to Council itself, to Ministers and local newspapers expressing views on the proposed Stanhope Airport expansion. If you have not yet written to Diane with your views, please do so — obviously, any and all views will be posted below. If you wish to share your views publicly, please copy any correspondence to your WebGuy. The most recently received emails are posted at the top of the collection.
Email our representative, Diane Griffin, Councillor
Copy Eleanor Harrison, Reeve
Copy Tom Gardner, Deputy-Reeve
Copy Carol Moffatt, Councillor
Copy Don Shortreed, Councillor
____________________________________________
READ THE COUNTY VOICE’S MAY 14th “LETTER OF THE WEEK”
“THE REEVE HAS FORGOTTEN THAT SHE WORKS FOR US, THE PEOPLE.”
____________________________________________
July 15
Dear Diane,
What happened to you??? When you were in the Township office, you were so helpful to the residents of Oxtongue Lake.We could always count on you to support our concerns. Now you have done an about face. Why should we be taxed for an expanded airport for which we have no use.? This is being forced upon us to please a few people. Who is our council representing? It is certainly NOT us. YOU are a great disappointment to those of us who voted for you!
Marilyn Farber
Oxtongue Lake
____________________________________________
June 30
Living close to the Oshawa Airport, I am reminded daily of its presence by the loud, low-flying planes of recreational pilots, many of whom fly well into the night. It is a welcome respite to head to our family cottage on Kennisis Lake to escape the roar of small aircraft, although not entirely since the odd float plane hovering above the lake can also be a fairly common occurrence. My views regarding the Stanhope Airport expansion actually have little to do with being a Kennisis Lake cottager, but more to do with my experience with living close to an airport supporting small aircraft traffic. I realize the Oshawa airport would have a higher traffic volume than what is anticipated for Stanhope, but even with fewer aircraft, each plane (especially the old beaters) has a disruptive effect on local residents/taxpayers. I also find it very disheartening that there appears to be a great disconnect between what the majority of the tax-payers of the area want, and the desires of a comparatively fewer number of local stakeholders. It would certainly renew my faith in the local government system if the council directly addressed the concerns of all their local constituents, and not just a select few.
Andrea Kirkwood
Kennisis Lake cottager
____________________________________________
June 23
Hello,
I’m not in Stanhope, but I don’t want airplanes flying up the Hwy 35 corridor, behind my residence. These special people with their “special” requirements for the airport should not take precedence over everyone else.
Sincerely,
Robert Gilchrist
Twelve Mile Lake
____________________________________________
In the good old days when we were flying (last half of ’60s and first half of ’70s) we used to fly in to Stanhope Airport from Montreal regularly. It had no lights, no paved runways, and no hangers (except Brown’s). Fueling was do-it-yourself. It worked fine. This was how many airstrips worked at the time and flying was more affordable.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’m not sure that any airport that caters only to non-scheduled air traffic pays for itself. If a small airport is financially viable I suspect that it is because many volunteer hours are donated for operations and maintenance. I sure wouldn’t bet that the capital and operating costs of an upgraded Stanhope will ever be recovered - even if you counted every tax dollar contributed by new businesses and residents attracted by it. In order to make it pay you would have to charge such high tie-down/hanger fees and fuel surcharges that they would drive away all potential users.
Where is the financial plan?
Ted Koehler
Wren Lake
____________________________________________
June 19
Hello Jim
We read with interest your letter in the Voice dated June 18th 2009. We are definitely against any airport expansion. As we live in the direct path of such a proposed runway we will lose precious trees that were planted by our grandparents. BUT the real issue is that we will be forced to pay for something that we do not want and will not use. There have been no valid arguments put forth to support such a project. It goes without saying that the entire approach to this issue by our elected representatives has been disgusting.
We have a first hand experience in needing emergency help 6 years ago when Jeff had to be airlifted to Sunnybrook Hospital. Thanks to the local fire department, ambulance attendants and the caring staff at the Minden hospital his life was saved. A new runway at the airport would not have helped in any way.
Tax dollars should be spent to ensure that our emergency services have all the money they need to carry on their life saving measures. Let’s let our tax money support the needs of our ratepayers and not a select few who enjoy flying. Let’s fix up the exisiting airport and put our money to work for the entire population in Algonquin Highlands.
Pat and Jeff Barry
____________________________________________
June 15
We might not be Oxtongue rate payers, but we live at Gull River between Maple Lake and Grass Lake.
We surely have an idea about the impact the airport and an expansion has on our favourite and bird watching routes.
Our quality of life WOULD NOT be as good if the expansion were to occur, but it won’t.
We also don’t agree that our community assets are squandered for the enjoyment of a few well-heeled influence peddlers.
And as far as Her Worship garnering support…
Well…
Donna Bisschop & Erik Scuhr
Haliburton
____________________________________________
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Re: Haliburton / Stanhope Airport Expansion Project
Mr Minister [of the Environment, Jim Prentice],
The Maple , Beech and Cameron Lakes Area property Owners Association (the MBC, the Association) has been requesting the intervention of your Ministry and others (CEAA, Ministry of Industry Canada, PMO, etc.) in the matter of a project entered in the CEAA registry, in accordance with provisions of the Ministerial Guideline on Assessing the Need for and Level of Public Participation in Screenings under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act – (2006) since March of this year.
*(This project is also the subject of a number of additional objections and requests for intervention, which are pending and of which Environment Canada has been made aware.)
The MBC has provided, by electronic mail and post, documentary justification for full public participation in the “screening” or other assessment of the Project which more than satisfies the majority of the criteria set out in the guidelines (see below) as well as in THE ACT, and has yet to receive any substantial response from you or your ministry.
5.0 Criteria for Determining When Public Participation Is Appropriate in the Circumstances
5.1 The following criteria should be considered on a case by case basis by responsible authorities when deciding whether public participation is appropriate in the circumstances:
- there is an indication of an existing or likely public interest in (i) the type of project, (ii) the location of the project, or (iii) the ways the project might affect the community;
- those who may be interested have a history of being involved;
- the project has the potential to generate conflict between environmental and social or economic values of concern to the public;
- the project may be perceived as having the potential for significant adverse environmental effects (including cumulative environmental effects and effects of malfunctions and accidents);
- there is potential to learn from community knowledge or Aboriginal traditional knowledge and, thereby, improve the environmental assessment and the project;
- there is uncertainty about potential direct and indirect environmental effects or the significance of identified effects; or
- the project has been, or will be, subject to other public participation processes of appropriate scope and coverage that would meet the objectives of this guideline.
The MBC considers this lack of response and action from your Ministry – and other authorities with responsibility in this matter - to be an unacceptable abrogation of the mandated responsibilities of Environment Canada and others, as well as an affront to the many hundreds of taxpayers we represent.
Left with no other options in the face of an apparently strategic silence from all avenues of appeal, the MBC has been forced to retain (at our own, considerable expense) legal counsel to undertake actions against the proponent with the aim of halting the advancement of the project, assuring compliance with numerous regulations, obtaining information which should, by EC and CEAA regulation, be publically available, and to have our voices heard regarding a project which has little or no support from any quarter and has attracted overwhelming opposition from the public, local media and regional government.
To the present date, more than three months after receiving Building Canada funding approval, more than two months after initial entry on the CEAA Environmental Assessment Registry and in spite of repeated requests to the Responsible Authority (Industry Canada), not a single document pertaining to the Projects’ EA has been made available.
Industry Canada’s position as RA is, while entirely in compliance with Law and regulation, one of inherent, apparent potential for conflict of interest, as IC is also the partial funding agency, by way of the Building Canada Fund Community Component and as a federal Ministry.
In such a situation it is imperative that the Environmental Assessment process(es) be and, more importantly, be seen to be fairly, rigorously and openly followed and it is the clear responsibility of the minister of Environment Canada to ensure that such is the case.
The refusal, by the Responsible Authority, to respond promptly and fully to repeated requests by stake-holders for information in the public domain presents, at the very least, the appearance of undue bias on the part of the RA towards its’ own interests as funder and (de-facto) co-proponent; By extension, the continued lack of response or action from Environment Canada and the CEAA suggests, to any reasonable observer familiar with the issue, some form of complicity with this bias.
At this point, the MBC and its’ allies feel we must demand, at the very least, a reasonable and detailed response to the concerns expressed and intervention(s) requested over the past months. This must include: our request for clear direction from the Minister to the project proponent and the Responsible Authority that all documents as listed in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act be made immediately available as required; our request that Public Participation process(es), as defined and (we believe) required by The Act and Ministerial Guidelines, be implemented in this matter; our request that Public Participation begin at the earliest possible stage in CEAA initial screening (project scoping).
Failing any or all of the above, we further request that the Minister apply his discretion to intervene in the EA process by referring the case to Mediation or a Review Panel as provided for in The Act and with a similar guarantee of stake-holder consultation.
Should these avenues prove, for any reason, unacceptable or “un-workable” for the Minister, or fail to obtain satisfactory levels of consideration of the public’s concerns, we would further request that the Minister consider (as permitted by recent amendments to The Act and associated regulation) referring this matter “downward” to the Ontario Ministry of Environment for their administration.
The MBC, its’ numerous individual supporters and allied Associations are prepared, if necessary, to challenge any eventual approval of this project by the CEAA and/or Environment Canada which is not based in a process including sufficient Public Participation, in whatever manner(s) may be available to us. At the same time, we feel that this would be indicative of the final failure of an evidently “broken” process.
Our Association has the support of, among others, the following associations which, together, represent several thousand Algonquin Highlands rate-payers: Halls & Hawk Lake POA; Kushog Lake POA; Livingstone Lake Association; Otter Lake Cottagers Association; Oxtongue Lake Ratepayer’s Association.
Our Association and the public at large eagerly await your prompt and detailed response to these urgent demands and requests.
Respectfully,
Andy J. Muirhead,
Director (research)
www <http://www.mbclakes.ca/> .mbclakes.ca <http://www.mbclakes.ca/>
____________________________________________
To the Editor:
It is a privilege for me to live in a democratic country that affords me the opportunity to participate in a demonstration at my local municipal offices as I did last Thursday, May 21, 2009, regarding the Stanhope Airport expansion.
The OutLoud Womyn’s Choir, supported by many local citizens, prepared and delivered a carefully considered statement to our local Council. One of the questions in the statement wondered how it was that so few people could make a decision against the clear position of so many dissenting citizens, and the other question was wondering why there was no referendum on such a divisive issue. The statement also had several quotes from the Earth Charter, which is a document adopted by the UN and many countries as a guideline on which environmental decisions are to be based for the future well-being of the earth.
I felt appalled and dismayed by the prepared response from our reeve, which had already been given in several media settings. It addressed neither of the questions nor the Earth Charter, and was patronizing and demeaning to the intelligence of everyone present. One quote from this response was “you elected your Council to make decisions on your behalf,” which sounded like a parent admonishing her children’s ideas, not an elected official with a mandate to represent our collective adult voices. The Council had received this statement a week in advance of the meeting, so could have addressed the questions in the statement more directly and respectfully, not just a reiteration of what had already been said.
What has happened to the democratic process we cherish in our County?
Joan Weir
Alqonquin Highlands
____________________________________________
Hello Mr. Devolin,
My husband and I are writing to you in regards to the proposed expansion of the Stanhope Airport in Algonquin Highlands in Haliburton. I am sure you are familiar with this issue.
We live directly under the proposed runway expansion and are very concerned about many of the issues connected with this expansion.
First off we are disappointed that the federal government approved funding via the Building Canada Fund based on the application Algonquin Highlands submitted. It is my understanding that both federal and provincial funding was approved based on this submission which to me has flaws that cannot be overlooked.
A complete Environmental assessment has NOT be done and this should definitely have been part of the criteria.
Secondly, the council supposedly stated that there was approval from the residents of this township as well as the rest of Haliburton county. This is NOT the case. At a recent warden’s breakfast all of the other 3 townships indicated that they would NOT support the airport expansion. We know from contact throughout our township that the ratepayers do not support this expansion as well. On Sunday May 17th at a cottage association meeting Reeve Harrison admitted openly when questioned that she thought she “might have” 30% of her constituent’s support.
Several of our neighbours have been approached by Reeve Harrison to have 100 years of access to their property to “top” trees and any other obstructions and they in turn would be rewarded with $10,000. This proposal was put to them in such a way as they felt they were being issued an ultimatum and they did not appreciate such bullying techniques. One of the neighbours lives on a 27 acre parcel of land and it has already been designated a protected wetlands. They are an elderly couple and certainly were most upset with the proposal but more importantly the manner in which it was presented.
We live on what was part of my husband’s grandparents farm on Cameron Lake just metres from the end of the proposed runway. Our daughter and her husband are building their first home in the same locale. ( They are building a sustainable home and are most aware of preserving the environment and do not welcome proposed jet fuel, noise and other intrusions into their life style.)
Besides the natural beauty of this small lake, we are very sentimental about being the 3rd and 4th descendants on this property. The fact that grandma over 80 years ago planted pine trees down the entranceway to the lake area and these same trees are in line to be “topped” is most distressing and to our way of thinking unnecessary.
There are many other issues at hand that I am sure you have been made aware of. ALL of the constituents of our township do not want our taxes increased for an airport that only provides enjoyment for an elite few ( most of whom do not even live in our township and will not face property tax increases to fund this nonsense.)
We also realize that the value of our property will certainly decrease and this is a hard pill to swallow knowing that we will have to pay via taxes for something we do not need or want. How nice it would be to have tax dollars going to a much needed new fire truck or housing for seniors, etc.
PLEASE reconsider supporting this airport expansion as it stands. PLEASE insist that a complete environmental assessment be implented immediately. Please have the powers that be go back and review this application and be made aware that there is NOT the township and county approval that Reeve Harrison said she had.
I would welcome talking with you to clarify any comments I have made. I can be contacted via this email address or by calling 705 754 1197.
Respectfully
Pat and Jeff Barry
1064 Cameron Lane
Box 100 West Guilford,ON
PS. In 2003 my husband Jeff was involved in a serious head on car crash. It was the Stanhope firefighters and local ambulance crews along with the doctors who had him transferred via air ambulance to Sunnybrook and saved his life. We know that helipads in Haliburton save lives NOT runways at Stanhope Airport.
____________________________________________
To: The Honourable Jim Prentice and Michelle Nagy,
Re: Stanhope Airport Expansion
Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR)
(Ref: CEAR 09-01-46567 and Industry Canada BCF #23926)
I understand that the Stanhope Airport Expansion Project has been registered for an environmental assessment, and I want to express my personal concerns about the project and its potential effect on the environment of the area in general.
We are extremely concerned about the effects of this project on the environment. The obvious problem is the necessity of clear-cutting acres of forest for the runway, not only on Township land, but on Crown land and even private property (by force, if necessary). What effect will airport construction & operations, as well as major buildings and aggregate mining, have on the adjacent lakes, rivers, environmentally protected wetlands and on well water? Does the complete destruction of the privacy and peacefulness of the surrounding area due to construction, land traffic and eventually air traffic, count as an environmental violation? Why was the Township allowed to clear-cut a swath along the proposed runway path without environmental approval? These are some of the questions we would expect to be explored with the Environmental Assessment Office, if the public has the opportunity.
Our fear is that our Township has somehow found a way to avoid having to deal with public input. We have always understood that any major development, such as the proposed Stanhope Airport Expansion and Development (which includes not only the “city-sized” runway, but a 40-unit Commercial Park, a 40-unit Residential “Airpark” and a full-scale gravel operation), would require a full environmental assessment, and would provide adequate facility for input from citizens who are concerned about the environmental impact of such a huge project, of which the current $3.6 million runway is only the tip of the iceberg. Until now, the Township has avoided any public discussion on the project, flying in the face of overwhelming objections to the project by Township property owners (and with the refusal of support from the other three Townships of Haliburton County, as well as the County itself).
Our immediate concern is that we will lose the opportunity for input, both individually and as a community. Council appears to be moving ahead as if environmental approval was a technicality. Tenders for the runway have already gone out. At the April 2nd Council meeting, the Reeve was quoted as saying “The project should be pretty well completed by the end of October”, and a Councillor was quoted as saying “… the Township is hoping to start initial tree-clearing required for the project in the near future …”.
Therefore, I ask you to please ensure that public input and public meetings are provided for as part of the EA process, whether provided for in the Act, or in common practice. Since over three-quarters of Algonquin Highlands property owners are seasonal residents, it is very important to schedule any public meetings or presentations on weekends in the two summer months – any other timing would not only be unfair, it would defeat the whole purpose.
Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.
Yours truly,
Jamie Taylor
1026 Kabakwa Lake Trail
Township of Algonquin Highlands
____________________________________________
To: the Council Members of Alquonquin Highlands, 21 May, 2009
Re: Stanhope Airport Expansion
As the OutLoud Womyn’s Voices of Haliburton County, we are known publicly for our care and promotion of environmental values. We sing of the land - not in any sentimental way - but with the urgent conviction of the need for a new way to protect our planet that marks environmental voices all over the world. The Stanhope Airport is not too small an example of the choices we are faced with in these days, for every choice, no matter how small, contributes to the growth or the diminishment of our natural resources. We believe that your decision contributes to their diminishment in many ways.
But other troubling issues arise from your decision also. Land has been expropriated from citizens against their will. Since you announced your decision, neighboring town councils have publicly stated their lack of support. Many other citizens of this county have voiced their protest - through letters, highway signs, articles in the local papers, and in a general groundswell of protest against the expansion of Stanhope Airport. Our question then becomes “how, in a democracy, can one or two people make a decision against a clear indication of the opposite position of so many citizens?” And if even that is not clear to the Council members, why was a referendum not held on this issue?
Please consider our request to reverse your decision to expand Stanhope Airport. Finally, we offer you some words from the Earth Charter, being adopted by peoples all over the world:
“We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future…[thus] it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.”
OutLoud Womyn’s Contact Persons:
Beth Johns 754-9558 (director)
Marjorie Green 286-2592 (publicity)
Brenda Peddigrew 489-3509 (statement)
____________________________________________
May 11, 2009
Hi Diane,
Hopefully you will recall my strong opposition to the TWP’s proposed expansion of the airport which I e-mailed to you and the Reeve with susbstantional documentation Nov. 30,2008 [see next post, below].I have received no contradictory justification for this proposal from you or from Reeve Harrison.
Hence, you will not be surprised that I am astonished and dismayed to hear that partial funding for your proposal has been approved via a federal grant. However do you justify the cost to the TWP tax payers for the balance of the expense for your proposal and the on-going maintance of an expanded airport?
Without serious dialogue with the community, Oxtongue Lake and all other Algonquin Highlands communities, regarding the expected revenues and benefits to the TWP, I strongly urge you to reconsider your support for this poorly conceived project and listen to the chorus of well documented objections! You surely have not represented the Oxtongue Lake community in this matter. And, please, I hope I don’t see you quoted again as sayihg you have not heard from us on this issue.
Judy Clapp
____________________________________________
[Judy Clapp's November 30, 2008 letter to Reeve Eleanor Harris and Councillor Diane Griffin]
To: Reeve Eleanor Harrison and Councilor Diane Griffin
I am appalled to learn that you have voted to approve the proposed new cross-wind runway for the Stanhope Airport! I understand the Councilor representing the OL community has indicted she has had no objections from her constituents at OL to this extremely controversial project.
How is it possible that neither of you have understood the overwhelming opposition reflected in the numerous written criticisms, and presentations, starting with the letter from the OLRA in May 2007, (to which we have never had the courtesy of a reply)? While I have not been able to attend any of the so-called forums for public review of consultants reports, cost and funding estimates, and other information designed to explain the rationale for this project, you surely a must be aware that those who have attended have come away more frustrated than ever with the lack of opportunity for meaningful responses to the questions raised.
I have read and fully endorse the concerns and objections so clearly stated in the following list of presentations, open letters, and local press and editorials which surely you cannot ignore:
Plans to expand the Stanhope Airport continue to evolve, at taxpayers’ expense.
Aug 8, 2008 update on the Cross Wind Runway expansion plans by Andy Muirhead
August 15th article in the Orillia Packet & Times: “Investments in airport have not paid off for Orillia.“
A report on costs, etc., called “Runaway Runway.”
Commentary by Paul McInnes: Why are they so afraid of our questions?
Paul McInnes’ September 18 letter to government officials (in this case, to Reeve Murray Fearrey)
Minden Times editorial Sept. 24,2008, ”Just because you can doesn’t mean you should”
Minden Times editorial, Oct. 29, 2008 “Airport Expansion on Crash Course”
And more recently, a letter from the OLRA and several other property owner associations in this municipality to Building Canada cites significant reasons that this project fails to qualify for this federally sponsored funding.
In this time of serious economic uncertainty, and in consideration of the serious misgivings of your constituents, in the name of democratic process and good government, I strongly recommend that you reconsider your recent vote to proceed with the proposed expansion of the Stanhope Airport and halt any further commitments in this regard.
Judy Clapp
Oxtongue Lake
____________________________________________
May 8, 2009
Township of Algonquin Highlands
Council MembersI am again writing to you, as a body of members, to ask why?
D. Griffin continues to speak untrue statements in regards to our area without the council, as a body of people, doing something to help us. I paid a price when she used the “No Communication” line and “hours” before Santa arrived at our Community Center the water was turned off. I had been in touch and D. Griffin had given items for the bags the kids were to get using her husbands Company name. How would that have happened if “I” the only person asking for donations, had not been in touch?
D. Griffin also states that NO one has said anything negative about the airport project. Anyone with ears knows that this is an untrue statement! Let me tell you who forgets to communicate. I having checked all papers from the township that I could find went to our dump yesterday. The same dump that in the winter I sent a registered mail about snow removal not being done, and I may also add I have talked about at every ratepayers meeting only to have E. Harrison say “Betty that has been corrected” in front of the many people who are in attendance. Well, imagine my surprise to find the dump hours listed on a board at the gate TOTALLY different from all info given out to us. I add also that I was far from being the only person to have this happen.
Now I know that D. Griffin would have the new info but she lives in Dorset. In the past she has said in the times that we have had problems, “Come to Dorset”. I know that E. Harrison would have the info but I am not about to drive to Minden. We are having our Community Center taken from us while both these areas have projects galore, and now our dump?
Again I am asking WHY????????
[Betty Tate]____________________________________________
Dear Councillor Griffin,
Perhaps at one time it appeared that Stanhope Airport would someday need to be expanded. Perhaps some people thought, “If we build it, they will come.” Ironically, Rick Waggoner, the recently deposed President of GM, has admitted—in just those words—that his company made precisely the same miscalculation in the months leading up to the auto industry’s crash. We can easily see how mistaken they were to proceed blindly according to those principles, especially in the light of the devastating economic slowdown we have seen this past year and a half.
Please listen to your constituents now. We are strongly opposed to the addition of a multi-million dollar tax burden, especially at this time. The truth is that air traffic has declined considerably. Besides, taxpayers’ ability—and willingness—to take on an added tax burden has also declined considerably. Please be realistic enough to see that the Stanhope Airport Expansion project should be cancelled or, at least, tabled for the foreseeable future.
Pat Fuhs
Algonquin Highlands Taxpayer____________________________________________
Dear Diane Griffin (& Council)
After 25 years of seasonal residence, I have recently built a year round home on Oxtongue Lake with the intention of retiring to Oxtongue in the next several years. As a taxpayer and concerned citizen, I can’t believe that council is proceeding with this project in these economic times. Even before the current economic turmoil, I did not see the economic value of this proposal and the residents of our area have made that clear to you in the past. We have been told by the President of our ratepayers association that you do not believe the residents are ardently opposed to this project. Rest assured that they are- and equally important, they believe they have shared these feelings with you in the past.
I am a C.A. by training and have been involved in many project assessments that require a solid return on investment (ROI) before proceeding. I find it almost impossible to believe that there is a solid ROI on this project. I believe the residents of the rate payers association and many others have expressed their discontent but their concerns seem to fall on deaf ears. Property taxes on water front properties are already exorbitant in relation to the services provided to these properties by the township and these market value assessments subsidize the services provided to town residents with lower tax bases. This type of project only adds to the distortion.
We urge you to represent your constituents and fight this ridiculous investment in unneeded infrastructure.
Sincerely,
Bill Thomas, CA
Oxtongue Lake
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Hi Diane,
I understand that the plan for the Stanhope Airport is moving forward in spite of the numerous protestations via newspaper articles, letters and emails that the community at large has communicated to Council. It was my understanding that our Councilor is supposed to listen her constituents and make recommendations accordingly. This does not seem to be in the case with this misguided airport plan. I do not understand how in this economic climate a venture of this magnitude can even be considered. Those of us who live and cottage at Oxtongue, members of the relatively tiny tax base of Algonquin Highlands, will never reap the rewards of this airport if there are any but we certainly will bear the weight of its economic burden.
I’ve been opposed to this airport from the very beginning when the land was “expropriated” from those poor people to make way for the runway. There was an outcry from the community even then. Now that the plan seems to be suspiciously moving ahead in spite of the protestations I continue to be against it. The airport is unnecessary, far too costly in these economic times, and the plan for its continuation should be abandoned immediately.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Siegfried
____________________________________________
Dear Diane Griffin & Council,
I was most surprised to hear that you had received no complaints or concerns voiced over the proposed Stanhope Airport folly as I sent a email voicing my concerns early last year.
The airport is unwanted / unnecessary and a waste of the taxpayers money not only now but for the foreseeable future.
In a time of financial hardship for everyone it is astounding that our elected representives are so out of touch with reality.
When other people are having to cut back and are struggling to pay mortgages, household bills and other expenses our local council is spending other peoples money on a financial money pit of self gratification. I don`t want the airport and I have yet to speak to anyone else that does.
Yours,
Colin Smith
Taxpayer
Parkway Cottage Resort & Trading Post
____________________________________________
Hi Diane,
I see the airport expansion is going ahead despite what I feel is the majority of the tax base having its concerns over the long term debt and our ability fund the on going costs. Please be advised that our household has 5 registered voters and they all object to manor in which this whole issue has been handled by council and strongly objects to the expansion. please consider the input from the voters who elected you.
Sincerely,
Gary & Tina Schultz
____________________________________________
Hi, Diane —
I wrote you an email last year indicating that I oppose the expansion of the Stanhope Airport — I just wanted to make sure that I, as one of your constituents, am indeed on record as having made this statement.
The reasons why I oppose the allocation of funding and the project itself already have been eloquently stated in many newspaper editorials, in meetings, and (I would imagine) in correspondence you and Council have received from others in the municipality who are opposed to the expansion. We are all especially concerned about the impact this will have on our taxes.
I do hope you will do your best to gauge the opinion of your constituency thoroughly. Anecdotally, I do not know anyone who is even remotely in favor of the airport expansion, so it is a complete mystery to me why it is still being considered.
With thanks for your continued concern and interest in representing us and our opinions accurately,
Jim (Grant)
____________________________________________
Dear Councillor Griffin,
Is this really the best time to launch a costly, and perhaps not especially useful, expansion of the Stanhope Airport? Please reconsider spending so much money out of our small municipal budget on this enterprise.
As a longtime Oxtongue Lake ratepayer — I’m the fourth generation to enjoy this beautiful place — I understand that I pay taxes to support a variety of activities, from education to refuse disposal. But I can think of no benefit to my neighbours at Oxtongue from this airport. If people who live near the thing want this project so much, perhaps they could form a special assessment district to pay for it.
I regret not being more involved in this process. Most of the year, I am far away in the West. I admit I am responding to Gary Schultz’ request to write you and plead for your support. Does Algonquin Highlands have so much money burning a hole in the municipal pockets that we have to look for ways to spend it? If we want to stimulate the economy, surely Council can find other projects that would benefit residents throughout the Municipality.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ted Blackman
Oxtongue Lake (and Reno, NV)
____________________________________________
Diane Griffin
Council Representative
Algonquin Highlands
Dear Ms. Griffin,
I am a rate-payer in Algonquin Highlands who recently experienced a signficant increase in the MPAC valution of my property, although there is little chance that my property could be sold at that valuation. Although I understand that the Council has no influence over the MPAC valuations, I am very concerned about potential tax increases, particularly related to the planned expansion to the Stanhope Airport.
I would like to express my strong opinion that this project be delayed and/or cancelled if there is ANY chance that the costs associated with the expansion and future operation will result in ANY tax increases to the small tax base that makes up Algonqiun Highlands.
Thanks,
Dan Murray
Oxtongue Lake
____________________________________________
I understand that you are planning to proceed with the airport expansion. I would like to re-iterate a message that I sent you months ago - I don’t want this, and I don’t want to pay a cent for it. Please respond to this message with a detailed accounting of where the funds to build and operate this will be coming from.
PS - I called the Minister of Municipal Affairs to record a complaint and ask if it was possible to impeach you bunch, but they said it wasn’t in their hands…sadly.
Diane [Morgan]
___________________________________________
Fair
Tonight: -4˚