After attending the public meeting regarding the illegal skateboard bowl on Feb. 12, I decided I had heard enough of the so-called positive aspects and thought something had to be said about the reality of the situation. Of note, Mr. Quesnel, the apparent spokesman and acting mayor and council for this project, has informed us that the land under the bridge is municipal parkland and that the project is not within 40 metres of any residential land. I took the liberty of looking at the district maps and it is clear the bridge is not located within any park. Further, my property borders the access that these opportunists have chosen as an entry to “their dream.” That is well within 40 metres. Finally, Mr. Quesnel boasted that there were no complaints about the noise or otherwise when he and his gang decided to construct their toy. There is obvious evidence written within the minutes of the Regular Business Council Meeting from Jan. 21 that states otherwise. The reason why the project was issued a stop work order was due to public complaints. Note that the initial order was ignored until the community issued further complaints.
It was also made clear within the minutes of this meeting that the District is aware: “District owns the area and a License with the District is required. As well, the District carries full liability for the site and integrity of the bridge is an important aspect that needs to be investigated by Engineering. Liability insurance needs to be addressed, a Building Permit is required, it is likely in a riparian area and could trigger the need for a Development Permit and a public process should be conducted.”
I have serious concerns regarding the comments and questions that were provided by council members in the minutes that followed the above facts. For example, how is it possible for a council member to assume the project “seems to be constructed well so far” without having any engineering expert reports to draw from? How can this comment be anything but arbitrary?
The way it is going, the “park” is only benefitting a small group of people at the expense of the surrounding community. This small group is attempting to claim their whimsy will benefit the public by providing us with something that has unresolved liability issues; there is no legal public access to this area; there is no proper public parking facility (which cannot exist because it is not a park; it is a bridge); there are issues over trash cans and garbage, not to mention the fact that this gang has not complied with any statutory authority within our municipality. Plus, I know none of us voted for him or any of his group at the last election. So, why are we even discussing this?!