Primrose: Why we fight

By Letter to the Editor on February 2, 2019.

There are genuine uncertainties and fears pertaining to construction in the park on the east side of Primrose Drive. The briefing notes for councillors prior to the Dec. 17 council meeting were shoddy to outright corrupt. Information on the true history of the Connaught and Marlborough areas was omitted or misrepresented.

Missing was the 1979 document establishing a ‘dedicated’ park designation for this area along College Drive. This document was a revised proposal for the Connaught development after parts of the area were deemed to be unfit for construction due to the water table aquifer in the area. It also warned of extreme drainage issues.

Also in the document were the costs for the park: $800,000 for construction (paid for in part by residents) and an estimated $60,000-$72,000 a year maintenance costs. Combine this with the recent $700,000 spent on reconstruction we have a 39-year S4 million taxpayer investment in the park that was misrepresented as a “vacant lot.” Will this $4 million investment be hidden again or included in the assessment process? If taxpayers do the math, upward of $4M is a fair parcel price for 24-upscale units (golf course view, nice neighbourhood).

That’s assuming they can be built without the ensuing flooding of houses after the next good storm. The precarious water table in the aquifer has been responsible for residents of Marlborough and Connaught areas paying for basement restorations, sump pumps, and weeping tiles after up-grade construction on the Connaught Dam.

Other missing information was the fact that the park was named two years ago as the Connaught Linear Park with promises of paths. A bike path could remove the dangerous bike track currently sharing a lane with the ever increasing traffic on College Drive.

When it came to the vote two councillors actually expressed moral concerns after listening to the citizens’ apprehensions uncovered that evening. Six others stuck to the preconceived idea that this being the first of several infill properties it must go through. One councillor was allowed to vote even though he touted on social media his business relationship with the developer who spoke. Was this vote even legal? Only the mayor (third vote against rezoning) questioned why information was omitted from their briefing notes and what precautions the city should take.

What is needed is a comprehensive risk analysis of construction in this park. Aquifer management specialists were not consulted in the Somerset debacle. This analysis must include input from the dam association geologists, a professional hydro geological study of water flow in the aquifer, and a study of issues related to storm water drainage.

Barb Taylor

Medicine Hat

10
-9