Re: City facing hard decisions (Oct. 15 edition of the Record)
A lot of these “hard decisions” facing Mission are a result of poor decisions made by the present and previous Council. The most recent decision to allow a “high density” satellite subdivision at Grove and Nelson Street,far away from services and transportation corridors.
Who will pay for the eventual new bridge on Wren Street and cow trail up to the sports park that is the natural route to accommodate hundreds of new home owners to get to Mission?
Allowing this precedent has put pressure on nearby rural properties as evidenced by ridiculously high prices being offered by developers/speculators.
Treating housing as a commodity to be exploited and manipulated is troublesome.
Proper planning is to expand where services are already in place and outward from where they terminate.
The staff say developers should be paying for the infrastructure expansion needed to accommodate growth. I and many others have been saying this for many years but council seems to take advice from developers instead of listening to the people who pay their salaries.
Yes, DCCs and amenity fund should increase substantially. Yes, I know your going to say extra fees by the city will further drive up the price of housing. No. What determines the final selling price of a residence is the market, not extra fees, however the developers profit may lessen.
I am definitely not a socialist, however the existing climate in which young people are facing the reality of the home ownership dream collapsing should not be accepted, even to the point of restricting ownership to only one house to each Canadian.
All future negotiations between Council and developers should be predicated on the fact that Mission doesn’t need them, they need Mission.
T.B. Mortimer
Mission