Midhurst residents turn out to oppose expansion

Hanna calls for open discussion by Springwater council
By Kate Harries AWARE Simcoe April 17 2010
More than 200 people packed the Springwater Township council chamber and foyer yesterday to show opposition to an expansion of Midhurstl that would allow the village to grow from 3,400 now to 30,000 by 2031.
Residents  carried green signs with slogans like `Cows not Cars,“Trees not Traffic,` `No Mega Midhurst and `Save our Village.` They cheered when Rick McFadden of the Midhurst Ratepayers Association called on council to “restart the public input and planning process and create a new Secondary Plan based on the guiding principles and policies of the Places to Grow Act of 2005.“
They cheered again when Councillor Jack Hanna – who represents the Midhurst ward – urged his fellow councillors to have their next debate on the issue in à public council meeting and not behind closed doors, so residents can understand council`s concerns.
`We shouldn`t send people away here tonight thinking that we can do something if we can`t, `Hanna added. “If we have no intention of doing anything, I don`t think we should let them go away thinking that we`re going to consider doing something and revising the plans the way they are today.“
In his presentation, McFadden said: `We believe that the residents of Midhurst were not adequately notified about the opportunities for public input or adequately consulted during the development of the Midhurst Secondary Plan.“
A petition signed by more than 1,400 people indicates the extent to which the residents of Midhurst disagree with the contents of the plan, he said, explaining that after extensive discussion in the community, a list of questions for council has been put together.
The ratepayers  are asking that the council respond to the questions “formally and publicly.“
The full text of the MRA presentation can be read on the Friends of Midhurst website.
The questions are:
-Would Council explain to us why an annual urban growth rate of 30% is necessary in our rural village?
-How does Council plan to protect the existing village of Midhurst from serious traffic congestion?
-What measures will Council take to deal with the inevitable land use conflicts and damage to our natural environment that will arise from intensive urbanization under the Secondary Plan?
-How much more of the taxpayers’ money does Council propose to spend promoting and defending a plan that the voters of Midhurst don’t want?
-Will Council do the right thing, repeal the Secondary Plan and develop a strategy to work collaboratively with the community to create a Secondary Plan that reflects the voice and wishes of the voters of Midhurst?
McFadden dismissed responses the MRA has heard from some members of council, such as `The matter is out of our hands,`  `We have been dealt this card, or `We could be sued.`
He pointed out that the Ontario Municipal Act protects councilors who perform their duties and make policy decisions in good faith, from legal proceedings.
However, he said, councilors do have obligations – to act in the best interest of their consitituents.
MRA spokesperson Robert Lines drew applause when he suggested  that council responses should go to all township residents. “Ìt`s not just the residents of Midhurst, it`s the residents of Springwater that are affected.“
“Ìf we work collectively we can come up with a solution,“ said Mayor Linda Collins.
She promised that council will respond. “We don`t know the timeframe, but we will get back to you.“
The council chambers emptied and people gathered outside, reflecting on the pleasure they take from their rural community – tales of a black bear sighted on a lawn, a resident flock of  250 wild turkeys and regular visits from deer.