|
After seeing the beautiful image on the left captured at my friend's blog, I was moved to try to show the stark difference of the beauty of God's gift versus that of mankind. The image on the right is my mind's vision of how the turbines will affect our view.
Many do not understand why their neighbours in Guildwood are so opposed to Toronto's proposed solution of destroying this pristine beauty for an industrial vision that would provide less than 1 percent of Toronto's needs.
One criticism is that we are not able to appreciate the beauty of wind turbines. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Many Toronto residents and visitors worldwide come to Scarborough Bluffs for an escape to this peaceful oasis, because of it's beauty, yet so close to the bustling and often stressful environment of downtown Toronto.
I have to wonder about the people who think wind turbines are beautiful. Would they also think that the multitude of towering office buildings in downtown T.O. or the incessant visual assaults of the litter of neon signs are beautiful? Perhaps we really cannot compare our different perspectives at all. It seems like we come from different cultures!
|
At the referendum, a number of years ago, leading to Scarborough's forced amalgamation with Toronto, the majority of residents here voted against giving up our values to Toronto's vision.
Since then the message we receive from The City of Toronto is contradictory. We have lost many of our natural CO2 cleansing trees and green space under Toronto's leadership. We are being asked once again to give up our natural environment and replace it with the city's solution. Yes, Toronto Hydro, is still owned by the City of Toronto, at least for now.
Billions of our tax dollars have been spent beautifying our shores to make a day at the Bluffs, whether walking or biking, a memorable experience, just as Toronto has. Does Toronto have the right to impose their plan on our waterfront while preserving their own?
Scarborough has proven over and over again that WE ARE GREEN FRIENDLY. Give us a meaningful action plan and WE WILL SUPPORT IT as we have in the past!!! This is not one of them.
|
|
The following comments are from John Laforet's Blog If you don't already do so, please make a point of checking Laforet's Blog Daily - IMO, he provides the most informed opinions re: the Scarborough Bluffs Wind Plant project available online.
Mike Leshyk Says:
February 14th, 2009
|
|
The placement of the wind farm close to the shore and foregoing any environmental assessment could create a Walkerton like water problem in Toronto.
The proposed wind farm is to be installed in the shallow waters 2 to 4 km south of the Scarborough bluffs shoreline. The water is shallow here due to centuries of soil erosion of the Scarborough bluffs. It is this soil erosion and the strong east to west lake Ontario water current that created the Leslie Street spit and the Toronto Islands. The main water intake for the R.C. Harris water treatment plant is located 2.6 KM off shore. This location is right in the line between the proposed wind farm and the westward moving lake Ontario water current.
Construction activity will no doubt disturb the lake bed from dredging and drill activities. Construction debris from the barges, equipment and materials such as diesel fuel residue, cement residue, welding debris, and other materials associated with the construction of these industrial machines will unavoidably be discharged into the water. All of this material will be pushed by the water current toward the R.C. Harris water intake. This water treatment plant provides approximately 45% of Toronto’s drinking water.
|
The R.C Harris water treatment plant was built over 60 years ago. It was not designed to treat the additional materials and toxins introduced by construction/dreadging activity right next to the water intakes. The normal process for wind farm installations in Ontario is to forego an environmental assessment. To date all wind power installations in Ontario (approximately 17) have been installed without an environmental assessment. This project needs an environment assessment. The drinking water of millions of people could be adversely affected.
|
