I have attached the Park Usage Report and the appendixes, the council minutes from July 4 --which aren't very informative (they deferred), although I think it is interesting to note that the topic was identified as "surplus parkland" (pg. 20 of July 4 council minutes) and that the report is titled "Park Usage", while all the media coverage is about the City's obligations under the accessibility legislation. (Does this seem odd to you?--I am thinking that the accessibility legislation is being used as an "enabler" for the sale of public parks that Council has tried in the past.)
One line from the report particularly concerns me: "In some cases the function of a neighbourhood park can be better accommodated by the closest community/regional park." Clearly, Ward 2 is "deficient" in "neighbourhood" parks and over-supplied in "community/regional" parks--the waterfront, Mic Mac and Malden are all in our catchment--I am concerned that this statement sets us up for being "better accommodated by community/regional" parks rather than our neighbourhood parks.
Finally, the statement "A separate in-camera report will be forwarded for Councils consideration regarding the acquisition/disposition of park land in accordance with the City's Procedural By-Law." also concerns me greatly, as I am afraid that the decisions about our parks might be taken behind closed doors and presented "Fait accompli".
Please forward these documents to others in our neighbourhood who might share my concerns and urge them to come to the Ward meeting on November 23.
If residents would like copies of the documents aforementioned, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I apologize for not being able to attach them to this post but unfortunately blogger doesn't allow word attachments.