AYLMER, QUEBEC | It seems that every week, we publish a letter to the editor or an article about trees being cut down for a housing project. This has become so common it's hardly news any more, except that these bulldozing are of great interest to our readers, judging from their reaction. Many residents are convinced the entire municipal amalgamation process was designed to give Hull and Gatineau builders access to Aylmer's green spaces. They are convinced of this, even though the amalgamations included Quebec City and other cities which have no connection to Aylmer or to builders in the Outaouais.

This is not a tempest solely in Aylmer's teapot. Media across the region, including Ottawa's, make reference to Aylmer's complaints and carry reports on the subject. So if everyone knows how much Aylmerites value green space, why do the developers working here seem ignorant of our deep attachment and concern?

It may be the case that builders and planners personally have little interest in nature, so protecting it seems irrelevant. But they do have an interest in nature. Most of their advertisements are about nature and the natural environment in which every housing tract seems nestled.

The builders approve the ads so they know the public's interest in trees, wildlife, wetlands, and open fields. Yet they bulldoze these things away without a moment's hesitation, so it seems, to put up another housing project. There is a major disconnect here.

So far, the disconnect is based on a strong housing market (the motivates the builders) and relatively cheap housing (this motivates the buyers). These two goals justify the bulldozing (in the eyes of the builders, planners, and first-time home owners). But these motivations are irrelevant in the eyes of the rest of the population.

More homes and more people do not mean, for the general public, better services or other advantages. More people means more traffic, more congestion all over, more kids for classroom space, more people seeking doctors and dentists, and so on. The fact that more houses bring big-box stores is hardly attractive.

So the general public protests more housing projects because they bring no advantages and cause a loss of trees; this is as clear as ice. A lot of housing projects does not mean we have the advantages of a city, either, since wall-to-wall housing projects are the sign of a bedroom community, a big dormitory, for the real city centres.

It cannot be that builders don't care what the public thinks. Builders are responsible corporations and hard-working individuals; they take their social responsibilities seriously. However, we know that goals, ambitions, and priorities are all relative and are ranked against each other.

Making money seems the paramount goal for almost everyone, including builders. Making money is what is killing our trees. Even so, why don't more builders rank community sensitivities higher than they do?

---

Copyright © 2008 Fred Ryan/Log Cabin Chronicles/08.08