Puslinch Council and Wellington County Council rejected the Thomasfield Homes proposal for an urban style subdivision of 250-275 housing units and an 18-hole golf course. The developer, Tom Krizan, appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board to overturn those decisions but was turned down. In last month's article describing this hearing I said that the siege of Puslinch had been temporarily lifted but that Krizan would continue the attack. Several days after I completed my article, Krizan appealed to the divisional court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to hear his case for overturning the OMB's decision. The appeal will be considered at Divisional Court on Woolwich St. January 14, 2002 at 10:00 or some time later.

Personal Reflections on two years of opposing the Corwhin development

My involvement with the community in opposing the development on hiway 34 at Watson Road began in September 1999 when Matthew Bulmer alerted Puslinchers about the proposal. It continued with attendance at many public meetings, advisory committee and council meetings and several days at the OMB hearing this past September. At an early public meeting I joined a small group formed to coordinate citizens' concerns about the proposal and disseminate related information. I assisted by writing a dozen articles for the Pioneer, speaking at public meetings and attending the OMB hearing. These were all very rich learning experiences for me and I formed many new insights and opinions about community planning and environmental concerns.

My biggest learning was about the extent to which developers' and their consultants would go to get what they wanted from a community of which they were not a member. As a professor, writer and consultant on community development I felt I had some experience about who gets to do what to whom in develop-ment projects. Consequently, I was ready for posturing about environmental concerns, as well as obfuscation, fabrication and the stretching of factual data. What I experienced during these 2 years greatly exceeded my expectations to the point when two untruths about me by name were tabled at the OMB hearing I later 'stood up' to object [but, of course, was told I was out of order and to sit down]. I was also very disappointed to see how much witnesses compromised their professional integrity in trying to further their cause.

Above all, Puslinch is under siege by developers and it is not a fair fight. A developer can come into Puslinch with an entirely preplanned development, no prior consultation with us about our needs, interests or concerns, and say it will be good for us. If the developer doesn't get what is wanted from the Township, an appeal is made to the OMB for approval. And if that doesn't work the developer goes to court to continue the battle. Extensive costs are involved all along the way with administration, lawyers and expert consultants. With only a couple of thousand ratepayers in Puslinch, these costs are very high. However, developers can add their cost to the price of what's developed and if they don't succeed, make the cost a tax deduction. Win or lose, a few thousand Puslinchers have to pay all the costs and get no tax write-offs. Developers argue that urban subdivisions will reduce taxes but rural municipalities have found the opposite. Halton County will not allow 'life style communities' except in serviced hamlets or towns. I have the very highest esteem for our Council in standing up to developers, putting our limited resources where our mouth is, and for Puslinchers and our County in supporting them. Those involved are playing a marvelous game but on a field that is not level. The developer likely paid more the property than the township's total budget for a year.