The Takhini North Community Association has thrown its hat into the ring of resignations from the city's working group to oversee the Porter Creek D proposal.

Association president Noel Sinclair said this morning it is obvious to the Takhini North group that the city already has its mind made up about proceeding with the controversial subdivision development and roadway across McIntyre Creek.

"So it is from our perspective both a waste of time and misleading to the public in the sense we do not want the result suggesting our endorsement of the development proposal, which we expect the city is moving toward,” he told the Star.

Sinclair said all the signs are there indicating the city is bent on moving forward with its plan to develop the area between Porter Creek and Yukon College, near McIntyre Creek.

City hall conducted a wildlife study which many experts feel was way too short to substantiate the conclusion that development can occur without hurting wildlife, he said.

The city, he pointed out, was quick to issue a press release on the study after the draft report was delivered to council, even before providing the working group with an opportunity see and comment on the document.

All one has to do is look at the city's open house held Thursday evening to gather public input on the Porter Creek D proposal, he said.

Sinclair said the presentation of the project proposal was polished and professional, but there were no options, no alternatives to Porter Creek D and the road to be considered.

One would think the city would provide more time for public review on such a major initiative rather than a mere three weeks leading up to city council's Dec. 12 vote on the proposal, he said.

"From the perspective of the Takhini North Community Association, the cart is way ahead of the horse here,” he said. "We do not see this as meaningful engagement by the planning department.”

The wildlife study concluded that developing a portion of the area would not have a negative impact on regional wildlife populations, and was not a viable wildlife corridor for large animals, nor should it be managed as one.

Providing for a 250-metre corridor for wildlife along the creek, along with a 250-metre corridor connecting the creek corridor to Stinky Lake, is suitable to preserve the existing wildlife corridor for small animals like coyotes, lynx, marten and such, the study concludes.

The Porter Creek Community Association, the Friends of McIntyre Creek and the Yukon Conservation Society announced their resignations from the working group earlier this week. All three organizations accused city hall of manipulating the review process to ensure it gets the answer it wants.

The city hosted its open house at the High Country Inn between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. At the 11th hour, the society and Friends of McIntyre Creek decided to hold their own open house, just down the hall, at the same time.

While Karen Baltgailis of the conservation society insists the overwhelming majority of those in attendance last night are opposed to Porter Creek D, that's not the way Mayor Bev Buckway saw it.

Buckway said this morning the people who approached her were genuinely interested in learning about the proposal and wanted to know more about the background so they could form their own opinions.

People did recognize the city must meet future housing demands, she said.

The mayor not only dismissed any suggestion the city has stacked the deck in favour of development, but insisted the process to gather the scientific information and public input is sound and thorough.

Without fail, in matters like this when studies are produced, those who don't like the results automatically challenge the validity of research, she said of her observations during nine years in office, the first three as a councillor.

She said those she spoke with were interested to hear Porter Creek D has been on the books for 12 to 15 years.

The mayor insisted she still hasn't decided how she's going to vote, as the review process and time for public input aren't yet over.

Baltgailis said it is clear to her – and it had to be clear to most by simply looking at the comments posted on the city's display boards – that the majority who showed up last night were opposed.

There were, after all, 126 signatures collected on a petition to the Yukon government calling for long-term protection of the area, which belongs to the Yukon government, she pointed out.

The job now for the conservation society and the like-minded community organizations is to make sure city council gets an accurate reflection of the feedback provided last night, she said.

Baltgailis said there is also talk among the organizations about organizing their own public forum, and perhaps host a radio call-in show along with representation from the city.

There's just so much information that is missing, she said, suggesting viable housing alternatives are not being raised.

Nor has the city substantiated the traffic study it cites when it describes the need for a road connecting Mountainview Drive with the Alaska Highway and an extended Pine Street, she said.

The Porter Creek D development was floated by the city back in 2005, though public opposition punched a hole in the boat.

The area in question is identified in the Official Community Plan as suitable for some residential development.

But the Takhini North group president said he doesn't understand why.

"There are other areas to build in,” insisted Sinclair. "So why are we carving into one of the jewels in the City of Whitehorse; why are we paving our Stanley Park?”

See related photo, letter.