The following notice appeared on the City of Charlottetown’s website this morning:
City Council will hold a Public Meeting to hear comments on the following:
Property Adjacent to 4 Prince Street (portion of PID# 841536)
An amendment to Appendix “G” of the City of Charlottetown Zoning and Development Bylaw – List of Approved Properties in the Comprehensive
Development Area Zone and Their Permitted Uses, as well as an amendment to the Waterfront Concept Plan to allow commercial, office and residential units for the vacant lot adjacent to 4 Prince Street (PID# 841536).
This is an area I know well – I walk by on the way from my house to the Charlottetown waterfront – and have some interest in. I’m part of the public that should be involved in a public meeting like this.
But reading this notice I’m left with a lot of questions:
- Where exactly is this property? What “portion” of PID #841536 is the meeting about? A map or even a sketch of what’s being talked about would be useful here.
- What’s “Appendix G” of the Zoning and Development Bylaw? Yes, I know I can download the bylaw and figure that out, but the web, if anything, is about making connections between documents. The bylaw should be in HTML, not PDF, and there should be a link from this meeting notice directly to Appendix G.
- What is the “Comprehensive Development Area Zone?” I have no idea.
- What is the “Waterfront Concept Plan?” Also, no idea.
- What is actually being proposed that requires a change “to allow commercial, office and residential units?” Does someone want to build a Tim Hortons or an apartment building or a single-family house?
Apologies for my flippant indignation, but surely, after the buckets of money that has been poured into inane “smart communities” projects in the city over the years, the least we citizens can expect is a clear, well-organized public notice about a public meeting with links to relevant resources; proper execution of our role as citizens would seem to require no less.
About This Blog
I am Peter Rukavina and this is my blog. I am a writer, letterpress printer, and a curious person.
To learn more about me, read my /now, look at my bio, listen to audio I’ve posted, read presentations and speeches I’ve written, or get in touch (peter@rukavina.net is the quickest way).
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of posts, an RSS feed of comments, or a podcast RSS feed that just contains audio posts. You can also receive a daily digests of posts by email.
Comments
Definitely.
Definitely.
Peter,I’m presuming your
Peter,
I’m presuming your indignation is just the slightest bit false, I’m reasonably sure you are aware of what a Comprehensive Development Area is and I’m pretty certain I’ve seen you at a couple of the many Public Meetings about the Waterfront Concept Plan. But your points are good yes The city and government in general can and should do a better job of informing people of the full nature of the question for debate at such consultations.
I wonder though about your reference to “…inane”smart communities” projects…”; are you for them or against them? What are these projects and which aspect makes them “inane”? Should they be proposed by those responsible to pay for them or by those affected? How many does it take to make a project “nane”?
Yes, indignation is just the
Yes, indignation is just the slightest bit false, and I can figure this stuff out on my own, in theory. So my indignation was more “societal” than “personal.”
Most of the evidence of “inane smart communities projects” has atrophied off the Internet by now, but there is still some trace left in the blogosphere. From 2001, for example:
Most of that $4.5 was spent on projects that were short-lived and/or never actually worked in the first place. Those projects that did see the light of day were often based on technologies, like Cold Fusion, that even then were on their way out and soon-to-be-orphaned.  You’d be hard-pressed to find any digital trace of that money on still-operating, relevant Internet projects.
This is inane and unfortunate on several levels, but mostly for the unrealized projects that could have taken place if that money was more wisely spent on sustainable, community-based open projects.
Virtual Charlottetown! I
Virtual Charlottetown! I think the emotion I just felt upon reading that was nostalgia rather than the indignation I remember feeling at its mere mention. People change I guess.
I agree. We will strive to do
I agree. We will strive to do better on the notices, seriously.
I am happy to participate in
I am happy to participate in focus group, to provide mock-ups, or to otherwise encourage this as required.
Add new comment