It has been a long, cold winter hasn't it?What can you do on a weekend evening when your friends come over to visit and you want to have a little party? You are too old for spin-the-bottle and charades are too boring.
Accordingly, you ought to try playing Windsor's latest Trivia Game: City vs. Other.
In this fun, adult game, a statement is read out from a story found in the Windsor Star and you have to guess whether it was said about a City project or some other project. If you can tell what the context of the statement or who made it then that is even better.
Not quite understanding what I mean. Here is a sample from the section dealing with the Riverside Drive project and the DRIC project. Read out the statement and guess. It is not as easy as you think.
The answers are below and the results indicator tells you how you fit in.
Here are the Statements
1) [It] has the capacity with no improvements whatsoever to carry all the traffic
2) The group's suggestion is just another delaying tactic to derail the project.
3) People need to do investigations before throwing out ideas like this
4) The environmental assessment process for the plan didn't go in the residents' favour and they are trying to delay the project by "muddying the waters."
5) He called the court action red herrings to cover up the true intent of the homeowners, which is to fight losing public rights-of-way that front their properties.
6) The Neighbourhood group says the plan will lead to greater vehicle traffic and higher speeds on the roadway, which already carries 25,000 vehicles per day.
7) They hired [name of lawyer] to derail the recently completed environmental assessment for the project
8) A key aspect of the environmental assessment was outdated under provincial legislation, making the study invalid.
9) The change suggested by the neighbours would reduce traffic and pollution
10) Introducing a new concept now to be studied would be nearly impossible, he said. "It would take maybe another three to four years to study that -- maybe that meets their purpose,"
11) The homeowners already had ample opportunity to provide feedback and fight their battle during the environmental study, he said.
"There was extensive consultation and they were well engaged and involved,"
"They say 'nobody has listened to us,' but the measures are in the plan because we did listen to them."
12) Group asks for judicial review of environmental assessment
13) They hired a Toronto law firm and asked for a judicial review, accusing the them of failing to complete a proper environmental assessment
14) He hopes the judicial review application will be decided on by the courts in four to eight weeks
15) The concern is the improvements in this project appear to be things that will actually increase volumes and speeds on a road well over what the official plan says it should be carrying
16) Residents are weary of living on such a heavily travelled, high-speed road.
"It's very difficult to live on a street that is so busy," she said. "The traffic simply goes too fast. Cars have been clocked in front of my house going 70 km per hour. I have children stand in front of our house waiting for (school) buses.
"It's very difficult to deal with the noise, safety concerns and a whole host of negative elements that go with such a high volume of traffic."
17) The neighbours' suggestions seemingly fell on deaf ears during the EA process, which is why the group formed.
"We have legitimate concerns we don't feel were recognized by the environmental assessment
18) There was "a lot of anger" among the group when informed of the legal action.
"It's another delaying tactic," he said. "It's a case of a few rich people holding up a better way of life for the city. It's unfortunate our court system allows that to happen
19) She was disappointed by the legal action.
"It's an avenue open to them, they are entitled to do this if they feel that strongly," she said.
"But we had extensive public input, went beyond what's required for environmental study and I think it's a good project."
20) "I understand people are concerned about the project, but we will still engage the neighbours in terms of refining many of the issues.
"It's a good project that's going to enhance. I think it will be beautiful."
Here are the Answers:
1) City---Wyandotte can handle all of the riverside traffic, not the Ambassador Bridge
2) City--- Riverside residents' group , not STOPDRTP
3) City—Chris Holt who says he travels the city only on foot or bike not full tunnelling or any Greenlink plan
4) City—as above not Teshuba’s letter writers
5) City---Drive residents losing frontage not Talbot road residents
6) City---Riverside Dr group not Windsor West Truck Watch
7) City---Riverside Dr. Group not City Council
8) City—Residents’ lawyer not Estrin
9) City---Residents’ group, not full tunnellers/Greenlink supporters
10) City---Councillor Halberstadt re one way street not DRIC re Greenlink
11) City—Councillor Halberstadt answering Riverside owners complaints not DRIC answering Council complaints
12) City—Riverside group not City Council
13) City---Riverside group not City council
14) City---Riverside’s group’s lawyer’s estimate not Estrin’s esitmate re DRIC lawsuit
15) City—Riverside Dr not Huron Church Road
16) City---Carol Easton not Mary Ann Cuderman
17) City---as above
18) City---Councillor Halberstadt, not DRIC about the City or others against STOPDRTP
19) City---Councillor Gignac not DRIC or Sandra or Dwight
20) City---Councillor Gignac not DRIC talking about refinements.
SCORES TALLY
0 right---You must be the new A3 Star columnist
1-5 right---You are a Star Editor
6-10 right---You must read the Windsor Star and believe what they say about DRIC
11-15 right---You must have cancelled your Star subscription
16-19 right---Where will you get your news if Eh-Channel and CBC disappear since you are not a Star subscriber
20 right---You can start writing this BLOG
No comments:
Post a Comment