|
Aug
20, 2003
CITY'S RED HILL THREATS LEAVE DIRECTLY-AFFECTED HOMEOWNERS
WITH NO PLACE TO TURN
What if the City did this to your home?
A
number of individuals have stepped forward and registered
as Parties to oppose the City’s attempt to get an injunction
against expressway protests. These individuals are putting
themselves at considerable risk because the City has made
clear that it will try to get them to pay for the City’s
very considerable legal costs. This threat, combined with
the threatening letter issued on July 31, is creating fear
among many people, including residents of the Greenhill
Avenue area who are facing the direct consequences of both
the City’s construction plans and its injunction. These
residents have very specific concerns and have not been
consulted in an appropriate fashion, but they are not seeking
to appear in the court specifically because they fear the
financial threats issued by the City.
The
City is planning to build 10 foot high walls within a few
inches (at most two feet) from the back fences of homes
along Brookstream and Harrisford. Because these walls are
so close to the edge of City property, it appears certain
that they will directly affect the adjacent private properties,
especially during the process of construction. At minimum
there will be drainage issues, and the movement of heavy
equipment may damage backyard structures, in-ground swimming
pools, and even home foundations.
In
addition, the City has obtained an interim court injunction
banning all persons from being within 10 feet (3 metres)
of the designated construction zone. This means that this
“no-go zone” includes large parts of the backyards
of properties along Brookstream and Harrisford. It includes
parts of swimming pools, tool sheds, gardens and other parts
of private properties. Violating a court injunction can
result in very heavy penalties including months in jail
and large fines.
It
would appear that the City hasn’t thought very much
about the implications of its “no-go zone”. For
example, the construction boundary at the end of Albright
Road is right up against the road leading to the school
parking lot. Anyone driving into the parking lot will have
to be within 10 feet of this boundary and therefore in violation
of the court injunction. A similar situation prevails at
the Greenhill Avenue dead-end.
The
problems with the “no-go zone” could be fixed
by the court making changes to the injunction order, but
that’s easier said than done. In order to raise this
or any other concern, someone has to apply to become a Party
in the injunction court case. And anyone who becomes such
a Party automatically becomes liable for huge costs. This
is because the City has made clear that it will try to make
the Parties pay for the City’s very large court costs
which are already estimated in the tens of thousands of
dollars.
Some
of these issues might have been resolved if the City had
conducted a proper consultation with the directly affected
neighbourhood. It chose not to do so. A few homes received
a letter in early July offering them a choice of extending
their fence to the noise wall, or not. Nothing else! The
rest of the neighbourhood was mailed a flyer on August 1
or 5 (construction was supposed to start on August 5, and
didn’t only because protestors blocked it). The flyer
said there would be consultations “in June and July”
but that was obviously pretty useless when the notification
didn’t come out until August.
The
fence extension scheme offered by the City generates its
own set of problems. At present homeowners can walk out
their back gate. Gates are not allowed in noise walls. If
the existing back gate is the only exit from the backyard,
homeowners are effectively denied any way out the back of
their home in an emergency such as a fire. Even if a homeowner
says no to the offer of extending their fence, agreement
by two neighbours would effectively block escape routes
for others. In addition, with a noise wall less than two
feet from fence, it will be impossible for some people to
get out even if they do have a back gate.
This
entire situation is grossly unfair to residents, irrespective
of whether they support or oppose the Red Hill Creek Expressway.
The City seems to not care, or to be in such a rush to start
construction of the road that they haven’t bothered
to think about the consequences.
|
