Hamilton Spectator Letters to the Editor June 6, 2003

RE: 'Mid-pen battle: Neighbours are worlds apart' (June 2).

This letter writer incorrectly states the position taken by Hamilton city council on the environmental-assessment process for the proposed mid-peninsula corridor.

Documents exchanged by the city and the MTO clearly highlight that the city has not been in full support of the approach taken by the ministry.

Indeed, because of our joint peer review with the city of Burlington, the needs-assessment document for the mid-peninsula corridor was vastly improved, to the point where Hamilton council could strongly support the need for the corridor to address congestion, economic growth, and the long-term land-use framework for the city of Hamilton.

The record also shows that the city has expressed great concern over the environmental, socio-economic and public consultation processes and documents produced by the MTO, not to mention the incredibly tight timeframes for review. These concerns are significant enough that Hamilton council authorized and directed staff to request mediation under the Environmental Assessment Act, should the concerns not be satisfied.

This is not "full endorsement of a weak assessment process," as suggested by the letter writer. Rather, it is the expectation that the issues must be addressed through a proper environmental assessment of the corridor.

The mid-peninsula corridor is a complex project, crossing many boundaries, with competing interests and, most significantly, affecting communities and residents. The environmental assessment must deal with all of these issues (and more). This is the expectation that has been consistently communicated to the ministry by the city of Hamilton.

-- Mary Lou Tanner, manager,

environmental planning and management,

public works department, City of Hamilton.