Photo by Whitehorse Star
Pictured Above: BEV BUCKWAY
Photo by Whitehorse Star
Pictured Above: BEV BUCKWAY
The Yukon Liberal Party may want the McIntyre Creek area protected, but Mayor Bev Buckway says the city already has development plans for the land.
The Yukon Liberal Party may want the McIntyre Creek area protected, but Mayor Bev Buckway says the city already has development plans for the land.
Porter Creek South MLA Don Inverarity and Cherish Clarke, the Liberals' Takhini-Kopper King candidate for the coming election, held a press conference Wednesday to emphasize the importance of preserving the wildlife corridor.
Land around the creek was designated for development of Porter Creek D in both the city's Growth Strategy and Official Community Plan (OCP) — adopted in 2010.
"It's not something that is new,” Buckway said this morning. "It's something that we've been working on for some time.”
Designating land for future development is an important part of city council's role, Buckway told the Star this morning.
"You have to identify land well, well in advance so you know where you're going to go next,” she said. "And that's part of our ongoing planning process.”
Extensive public consultation was undertaken in the creation of the OCP, Buckway said.
"We've definitely heard that people value the area, of course,” she said.
"It's sort of a two-fold thing: people want to be able to recreate in the area and yet protect the environment. So it's trying to come up with a balance.”
Buckway noted that public consultation continues as plans move forward, with everyone from the Yukon government, the Kwanlin Dun and Ta'an Kwach'an first nations, and environmental and community groups giving input on how to proceed with plans for the area.
"Public consultation is always part of what we do,” she said.
In addition, the city is collecting information on the environmental, economic, cultural and social interests in the area, and is conducting a wildlife study to look at what impacts development would have.
The information collected will be presented to council and the public in November.
"We are moving forward with the planning,” Buckway said.
"It's not a speedy way to go. I know there are people who'd like to go in with bulldozers and start making roads, and there are other people that would prefer that nothing happened.
"But, again, the consultation we've done with the public through the Official Community Plan and prior to that has already identified that area.”
Though the area has been designated for development, there will be environmental protections, including "good buffers” along the creek, Buckway said.
"Through the city's Official Community Plan, there is protection already there,” she said. "So what the Liberals are asking for from the territorial government is something over and above what the municipality is working on.”
With a territorial election looming this fall, candidates' campaigns are bound to touch on issues which have municipal implications, which can create misunderstanding about which body is responsible for which issue, Buckway said.
"When people are out talking to the residents and the constituents, there can be confusion about who's responsible for what,” she said.
This murkiness isn't necessarily confined to the electorate either.
Buckway said she recently noticed one territorial election candidate's platform is made up of three issues, two of which are municipal and one of which is federal.
Communication would help mitigate confusion, Buckway said.
"The more that the various orders of government talk together and take time to meet with each other about which responsibilities belong to which jurisdiction — and also where people can better tie in together and join forces to get better results for their residents and the constituents — I feel is very positive,” she said.
When development in the McIntyre Creek area would actually begin remains unclear.
Porter Creek D is slated to go in around the same time as the last phase of Whistle Bend, which could be 120 years away, depending on how they city's population grows.
"It's certainly down the road,” Buckway said.
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (10)
Up 0 Down 0
road d' no-where... on Aug 22, 2011 at 7:46 pm
After revisiting this page, I feel some clarification is in order.
My commentary was in no way intended to be directed towards any individual commentator. Rather it was intended as a satirical (and hopefully helpful) reflection of the numerous and various Yukon human vs. wildlife issues and conflicts I have pondered and questioned over many decades. I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding my choice of words may have caused in this regard.
Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts.
Up 0 Down 0
Doug Rutherford on Aug 22, 2011 at 8:39 am
It's interesting that the city has plans for the area, while this has been earmarked at Endowment Lands for Yukon College and much of the area is marked as protected under the Historic Resources Act because of the presence of historic resources. Seems to me that a few people at the city should actually talk to YTG and get their collective acts together.
Up 0 Down 0
road d' no-where... on Aug 21, 2011 at 11:30 am
Good to finally see a politician taking full blame for the present shortage of building lots in Whitehorse.
Vehicles cause far more injury and death than wildlife encounters, does that mean we should rush out to destroy vehicle corridors and exterminate automobiles? I think not. Besides, there isn't a city on the planet that doesn't have wildlife corridors, so get past your delusional paranoia.
If yet another access route is indeed needed, then it only makes sense to build it where people are going to actually make use of it. Spending millions of dollars to destroy a wildlife corridor in order to placate a few nature-phobes is unacceptable.
Instead of supporting another one of Bev's ill-conceived plans, let's spend the money building another bridge to supplement the one regular access to Riverdale and our only hospital. I'd even support a direct route to the Psych Ward so the weak and pathetic can have undeterred access to the help they need in coping with their irrational fear of the Big Bad McIntyre Creek Fox.
Up 0 Down 0
mark on Aug 19, 2011 at 8:39 am
C.O.W Council is a joke.
Up 0 Down 0
Brice Carruthers on Aug 19, 2011 at 2:33 am
Last time I checked, we were 35,000 people in a territory the size of California. There's no shortage of untouched creeks in this territory. Why do we want wildlife corridors in the middle of a CITY anyway? Eventually, a hiker will be mauled by a bear or a young child will be bitten by a fox, and then the NIMBY's will wake up to the fact that wildlife and wildlife corridors have no place in a city. I say leave a 60 metre buffer on either side of the creek for the salmon, and clear cut the rest of it.
Up 0 Down 0
Wayne on Aug 19, 2011 at 12:38 am
The city beats the public consultation drum continuously. Think of all the charettes. As is the case in the Whistle Bend clear cut, doing any work in a careful, and thoughtful manner is never contemplated. Once any work begins, public ideas and wishes don't make one bit of difference. ytg and the city will do whatever they want, where they want, and how they want. What you think does not matter. We pay city planners hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Why would any of them pay attention to a mere citizen?
Up 0 Down 0
JC on Aug 18, 2011 at 9:25 am
The McIntyre Creek development is the City's problem, not the Territorial Government. If Liberal leader Mitchell, NDP Liz Hanson and the Green party leader - whats her name? are so worried about environmental damage, I suggest they clean up the mess in their own back yard first - back of the Legislature building. Who is going to pay to clean up that mess when those irresponsible lazy loafers finally leave? We the tax payers of course. When the governing party tried to do something about it when it was getting out of hand the Liberals and NDP put a stop to it. Since they have not come up with a solution. Are the members of these two parties doing anything about parking these loafers somewhere else? I hope to see some of them helping to clean up the mess later. My, I'm dreaming again - Liberals NDP, and Greens helping to clean up an environmental mess?
Up 0 Down 0
JC on Aug 18, 2011 at 9:04 am
Here's an idea. Why not move all the tent people behind the MLA building out there. Wasn't the Liberal party complaining about those poor people with no place to live? I notice also, they and their socialist counterpart - NDP haven't come up with any ideas yet. Just waiting for the fall election I guess.
Up 0 Down 0
Francias Pillman on Aug 18, 2011 at 8:51 am
""Public consultation is always part of what we do,” . Give us all a break. Destroying that corridor seems a right thing to do. Those dumb animals don't pay taxes, so their input is invalid, right Buckway? I'm so sad to see my home town changed so much in the pursuit of a few people's bone headed decisions. But hey, I'm the minority. Someone who thinks first, asks questions, and demands accountability. Something the majority of society doesn't even know the definition to.
Up 0 Down 0
CreekLover on Aug 18, 2011 at 8:47 am
Really? Leave the Creek alone! The city council may have consulted with the public, but have they listened to them? I think not.