Letter: Benefit to all?

When you drill down it simply isn’t a “win, win”

Benefit to all?

Re: the letter from Ernie Gorrie, “Duncan Manor provides benefit to all”, (Citizen, Nov. 18)

Let’s drill down on the comments in his letter.

“Making a larger and better park for all citizens” and “provides net benefit to all”.

The city will get .48 of an acre. That .48 of an acre is lawn bowling land that is used by lawn bowlers, that’s it, nothing more. Not more land that is a “net benefit to all”.

In exchange the city will be giving away .38 of an acre of Centennial Park. DHS says that it is just a parking lot but it is land that has shade trees that the residents of Duncan can sit under and enjoy, space where they can walk, lie, sit, chat and picnic. Land that is zoned for park. Space that residents of Duncan can and do use.

In exchange the city will also be giving away the grassy area to the north because the city will have to pave it to replace the parking that DHS will build over top of. The result will be more concrete and less park for all citizens to enjoy.

How is that “making a larger…park for all citizens”?

Also, in exchange for the lawn bowling land the city will lose upwards of 15 trees that will disappear from the park. Open space will be closed in by a six-storey building. A building that will cast shadows, block sunlight and erase the view of trees and sky. A building that will destroy the feeling of expansiveness and openness.

How is that a “better park” and a “net benefit to all”?

Ernie, we all want Duncan Manor replaced, just not at the expense of green and open space and land zoned for park. When you drill down it simply isn’t a “win, win”.

Barry Corrin