Welcome to the website of the 19 day occupation of the proposed Hanlon Creek Business Park, at one of the last Old Growth Forests in Southern Ontario, located in Guelph, that occurred from late July – August.
Short re-cap of the past few months:
On Monday, July 27th, at 6:30am, about 60 people walked in and stopped the destruction of this beautiful and precious ecosystem. The City of Guelph then decided to take the protesters to court to deliver us with an injunction. However, to their surprise the court allowed us to remain on the land, and ended up also delivering the City with an injunction (filed by the protesters), declaring that the Minister of Natural Resources had 30 days to issue a work stop order. On August 27th the Minister decided to not issue a work stop order, allowing the City to work under certain conditions in order to ‘protect’ the Jefferson Salamander (a threatened species – see below for more information). However, after resistance to the HCBP continued in various forms by people all over Southern Ontario, the City announced that they were not constructing the culvert until Spring 2010!
This means that the occupation met its goals – which was to stop development for the fall!
However, this also means that we all will have our work cut out for us for the next year to stop this development all together-
So read on for more information!
Background:
The proposed Hanlon Creek Business Park had been highly contested since it was first put forward in 1993, with opposition greatly increasing in the past 11 months. This widespread public outcry is for a variety of reasons, including the intrinsic worth of an Old Growth Forest, the significance of the Paris-Galt Moraine to the integrity of our drinking water, the abundance of ‘brownfields’ and industrial land that is not in use, and provincial and federal regulations concerning the preservation of the Jefferson Salamander and Provincially Significant Wetlands that are found on the site.
The Jefferson Salamander was found on the site in late May, after which the City claimed to be in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to determine the best way to proceed with the HCBP without harming the Jefferson. However, the City initiated the first phase of development, the installation of a 4-lane access road and culvert over Tributary A of the Hanlon Creek. This destruction of the land renders this consultation a farce, as the MNR actually explicitly requested the City not to proceed with this development. Also, the Provincial Policy Statement states that Provincially Significant Wetland should have a 120 buffer of adjacent lands; this area includes where the culvert would be installed.
The City has not only completely disregarded the huge public outcry to this development, but has also failed to comply with provincial regulation. It claims to be protecting the very land that it is destroying; thus we have taken it into our hand to protect this vital and beautiful land that is home to so many animals, plants, and trees, including some Great Blue Herons that have often visited us in the early hours of the morning.
We are imploring the City to:
• Listen to public outcry and respect the intrinsic importance of this land by immediately ending this development and terminating their contract with Drexler.
• Compensate the skilled labourers of Drexler Construction for lost wages, including those who choose to stand with us.
• Publicly apologize to the people of Guelph for disregarding their opposition to this development.
We are very interested in networking with other people, groups, and organizations. Please feel free contact us if you would like to organize an event for us to speak about this at, for example you can organize your neighborhood groups, unions, workplace, etc. We are also very interested in working with other struggles around the city against development projects. You can e mail us at: hcbpoccupation@gmail.com
Hi: I saw Michelle DuBois’ post on The Woolwich Observer‘s forums.
Elmira also has a small patch of old-growth forest that the Woolwich Township Council seems determined to monetize. So far, they have not acknowledged the outcry from Elmira’s citizens at all. The area would only accomodate some 20 houses — and the Woolwich Council has already given approval for some 250 houses on farmland recently sold to developers, and another 250 houses just built on the former raceway property. Just how greedy are they for more tax dollars?
I’ve driven past the HCBP site many times, never realizing what beauty lay just beyond the highway. I’ve been looking for a destination for a nice long bike trip — hope to see you all there!
–Bob.
BTW, the http://preservevictoriaglenpark.blogspot.com/ blog is not mine, but worth checking out for some kindred spirits.
–Bob.
Hmmm…
Who actually determined that “citizens of Guelph” are opposed to this development?
It may well be that the dozen or two occupiers perceive themselves as knowing what the hundred thousand plus residents of Guelph believe, however there’s not much evidence to support that claim.
An ongoing problem in the activist community is a tendency to make claims or assertions that play well among kindred spirits and fall apart when looked at outside the group.. Claiming to represent those who have given you no mandate to do so doesn’t advance your cause.
The most compelling reason is that people organizing to raise awareness about the HCBP have been going door to door since the winter, speaking to easily several thousand people. Anecdotally, not more than a handful of these several thousand has voiced support for the HCBP. When the rationale opposing this development is laid out, near everyone is in agreement that it is not in our best interest.
The problem is that anecdotal evidence of support is a pretty weak measurement of true support. If Guelph residents were quite committed to the protest I don’t imagine the camp would consist of a tiny handful of folks. Typically people will appear to be in agreement with whatever the person standing on their front step is trying to say to them; that’s just being sociable.
There were about 30 people camped out on the site at all times (which was the max amount of people we were legally allowed to have after the first court appearance), who rotated. On family day there were easily more than 100 people. But, most people can’t risk staying at the site because they have children and a job and can’t risk arrest. It’s a fairly scary thing to defy the law because most people who do are looked down upon and a lot of people have a lot at stake. So, those people took on other roles.
The people who were camping out had all of their food donated , all their legal funds payed for (more than 6 grand), all of the fire wood, water, walky talkies, extra gain gear etc etc donated by people from the neighborhood and around Guelph. Supporters wrote to the newspapers, to the mayor, organized fundraisers, made shirts, patches and buttons, etc..
I’m not trying to convince you. I think that you definitely had to see the site yourself to understand the support that was happening. I guess I’m just trying to explain the different ways in which support happened. It wasn’t just on the front lines.
Does that clarify things a bit?
I talk to a lot of families who are not activists, but just concerned mothers and fathers (I am one of them). They are happy that the protesters were out there, because they can’t be, with small children at home. There are just a lot of people who do not want the development to go through but are paralyzed by the councils refusal to stop it.
I think that if an official polling were taken in Guelph, there would be overwhelming support for protecting Hanlon Creek.
Rogers local cable in Guelph has done a brief polling on their site and the result was 100% of people thought that the city of guelph was not doing enough to protect hanlon creek. That seems pretty telling to me.
I think it’s pretty obvious that the City’s stance on this issue has been ill covered/discovered by the media. It’s easy to get people to agree with you when you only show one side of the coin.
I must admit, you almost had me, until I looked into it more deeply.
We and many others have been looking into this issue really deeply for a long time now, and keep coming to the conclusion that the business park would be disastrous for local species, very risky for our drinking water, certainly a ridiculous way to spend taxpayers money, and a horrible way to deal with climate change.
The city has had tons of room for their issue – they have been represented at town hall meetings, they have a ton of money to put towards ads in the papers, they even produce their own paper called Insight Guelph which has a totally green-washed explanation of the HCBP, and they have a marketing and p.r. department that manages their communications. It’s a bit one-sided….
Yes development is a necessary evil in this city of ours but the “powers at be” must make good on their environmentally friendly platform. Yes develope the land but why is it not possible to …
1- Stipulate that a higher percentage of industrially and commercially developed land be kept as green space. This green space to be maintained by the ower…. home owners do why shouldnt businesses.
2- Requirement for planting/ replanting of indiginous trees and shrubs. Is there some reason that an industrial business park has to look like one? A barren piece of land devoid of anything that resembles that it is alive and capable of sustaining anything but steel. I am not talking about a few decorative landscaping plants either. Something that your employees can actually come outside and sit under to enjoy the fresh air.
3- Limit paving and parking surfaces to only what will be required by the bussiness. Again something that is done to home owers. Way too many empty paved surfaces in this city that kids could be playing sports on.
There are so many simple and sensible things that can be done to set this city apart and actually demonstrate that we are a viable place to do business but at the same time are serious about protecting the environment. All it takes is a little creatvity and thought by our elected “group”.