Skip to main content

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority: Make DG Group's wetland destruction application public

330 Comments

S
Steven Zawalick
11 years ago

Don't tell me that Wetlands are not everyones concern. DG's is a private matter when it comes to building on a significant wetland. I don,t think so. LSRCA arrogance on this matter is inexcusable and should be properly dealt with. Long live the forest. Thank you, Steven Zawalick , Ruth Robertson & Darrell Robertson. Keswick, Ontario

S
Steven Zawalick
11 years ago

Don't tell me that Wetlands are not everyones concern. DG's is a private matter when it comes to building on a significant wetland. I don,t think so. LSRCA arrogance on this matter is inexcusable and should be properly dealt with. Long live the forest. Thank you, Steven Zawalick , Ruth Robertson & Darrell Robertson. Keswick, Ontario

S
Steven Zawalick
11 years ago

Don't tell me that Wetlands are not everyones concern. DG's is a private matter when it comes to building on a significant wetland. I don,t think so. LSRCA arrogance on this matter is inexcusable and should be properly dealt with. Long live the forest. Thank you, Steven Zawalick , Ruth Robertson & Darrell Robertson. Keswick, Ontario

N
Niall Lawlor
11 years ago

Transparency - not trailers - please

E
Erik Rasmussen
11 years ago

This proposal is an absolute outrage! Get your head together LSRCA. The only answer to DG is NO! Also, you have no right to hide anything from the public. Show face, deny the application, and save a precious space for everyone.

T
thomas Long
11 years ago

Do we really need another trailer park?

A
Anne Linkruus
11 years ago

This group is not interested in conservation, only money. When we built our home in a greenbelt area we had to jump through hoops and $1000 payment to get them to sign off. Noone ever came to look aat the property to see what was at stake.

J
Janet Regis and Henry Regis
11 years ago

Destroying the ecosystem that wetlands provide, would be the legacy of building here. Could you engage the provincial government to use powers to require that this sensitive land be saved. I think you mentioned that most Ontario wetlands are protected by law.

A
Anonymous
11 years ago

Whatever the decision, transparency holds all accountable for their comments, votes and ultimate decisions.

M
Mary Watson
11 years ago

If the changes in the ruling are to be introduced or voted on in the near future, it doesn't make sense for the LSRCA to allow the building to happen.

M
Margaret Burrows
11 years ago

Demand transparency!

J
Joyce McLean
11 years ago

Destroying wetlands is wrong in so many ways.

K
K. McGillivray
11 years ago

As a community we have a right to know and a right to have a say what happens in our back yard. We moved to this area because of the natural habitats. So many times in various communities throughout the world it has been stated the impact in similar situations will not "harm a provincially significant wetland" and yet down the road it is found out that over time it does. I do not agree with the decision of the LSRCA by not making the application public...shame on you!!!

L
Lisa McCutcheon-Witherspo
11 years ago

Unbelievable that Metrus or DG Group is so adamantly planning to destroy significant wetland to built a mobile home park! Even more unbelievable that the LSRCA is not allowing the documents to be public. Clearly there is a good reason for them to hide something, and the public's best interest is being deemed to be un-important. BRUTAL

B
Bob Smith
11 years ago

I have stopped donating to the LSRCA due to this attitude!!

A
Armando Perez
11 years ago

It is amazing how branches of the public administration function forget that public servants works for us, the public and not the other way around.

J
Joanne Henderson
11 years ago

Time to make all the documents public. There should not be a need to hide anything.

M
Michael McNeil
11 years ago

make the right choice today for tomorrow, stop the ecosystem destruction

E
Edin Gough
11 years ago

I don't understand why the LSRCA still has "Conservation" in its name. It seems "Development" would fit in there better.

C
c. mckay
11 years ago

shame of you for continuing to push this