Unfortunately, the Conservation Review Board decided they would not accept this letter as evidence, even though it clearly shows what thousands of citizens have been saying for months: the David Dunlap Observatory park has broad heritage value. It has local, provincial and national significance and should be preserved. As the letter states:

“No matter the outcome of the CRB ‘s deliberations and its advice back to Council on this matter, we are of the opinion that in relation to this site the Province should demonstrate proactively its leadership in the conservation of Ontario’s heritage for the benefit of the people of Ontario. This is not simply a local issue.”

Alexander further advises that the Minister of Culture, Aileen Carroll can establish the “immediate protection of the entire site through designation by you as Minister,under Section 34.5 ofthe Ontario Heritage Act”.

You can download the entire “Ministry of Culture 08-022-responsive-record”

The question is: why has the Ontario Government been sitting on this file for months, despite the direct pleas of thousands of residents and the advice of the Ontario Heritage Trust?  If you would like to help, please support the Richmond Hill Naturalists’ letter campaign.  Over the course of the Conservation Review Board Hearings hundreds of people have submitted personal letters calling for the complete preservation of the Dunlap property. In addition to the above letter campaign, you can also show support by adding to our original online petition and joining the Save Dunlap Observatory Facebook Group .

If you live in the Toronto area, Dunlap Observatory is a green space you will want to protect.

From Oct 30, 2007 Open letter to the Governing Council of the University of Toronto:

This afternoon, the University of Toronto Governing Council will meet to decide the fate of the David Dunlap Observatory and its adjoining 189 acres of forests and meadows. This will be no ordinary meeting, and, if U of T’s governing body decides to sell, it will be no ordinary sale.

If these lands are permitted to be sold off and turned into houses and big box stores, it will require the consent and collusion of U of T’s governing council, the Town of Richmond Hill and the province. In other words, the destruction of DDO forests and meadows will proceed only if the University declares the property to be surplus land, the Town of Richmond Hill council rezones it from institutional to residential/commercial, and the province (through Ontario Municipal Board hearings, if not ministerial intervention) allows bulldozers to begin scraping away the topsoil and trees.

If these three entities collude to ensure the destruction of the largest remaining green space in the heart of Richmond Hill, it will demonstrate once and for all that our society has no interest in building sustainable communities or fixing the environmental mess we have gotten ourselves into. It will show that despite the pretty words in a thousand press releases, no one really believes green space is important for the well-being of people and wildlife.

After all, if one of Canada’s leading universities – an institution responsible for teaching conservation and sustainable development practices and for researching the social and environmental aspects of natural green space – is willing to sell the DDO to the highest bidder, what can we expect from rest of society?

In fact, the sale of this land will undo much of the University’s institutional effort to become sustainable and environmentally sound. The University of Toronto demonstrated leadership by opening a Sustainability Office in 2004. Since then, it has launched numerous greening initiatives – from the LEED-certified Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre in Mississauga to extensive tree planting and naturalization projects on the St George campus. In an article on the University’s “Open Space Plan”, Mary Alice Thring writes “Trees are so integral to U of T that they appear in its crest and are invoked in its motto: Velut Arbor Aevo, which translates as ‘As a tree with the passage of time.’” She adds, “Trees are such a focus of all phases of the Open Space Plan that the landscape architects describe transforming the campus into an ‘urban forest’” (U of T Magazine, Spring 2004).

Clearly, when it comes to its Toronto and Mississauga campuses, U of T’s administration understands the relationship between the environment and the health and well-being of people and all living things.

But, will the greening of U of T’s 160-acre downtown campus mean anything if that institution sells off 189-acres of healthy forest and meadow lands in order to pay for future expansion projects? When the Dunlap property became part of the University in 1935, it was cultivated farmland. After seventy years of U of T’s stewardship, this land has been regenerated. It is now a crown of forest cover in the midst of Richmond Hill and a quiet haven for dozens of species of birds, deer, walkers – and astronomers.

If the University proceeds with this sale, it will be in spite of the broad and deep environmental expertise of its own academics. A quick scan through the U of T undergraduate catalog turns up dozens of courses on the environment, forest ecology, conservation biology and other topics. Dr. Mart Gross, for example, teaches courses which focus on “biodiversity; endangerment; habitat loss and fragmentation” as well as “moral philosophies, and political, economic and social justice issues surrounding biodiversity”. In fact, U of T is home to Canada’s oldest forestry program and celebrated that Faculty’s centennial this month by hosting an international Congress to develop a “comprehensive Global Vision of Forestry in the 21^st Century”.

What kind of “vision” will the sale and destruction of a major urban forest provide for the residents of Richmond Hill and their children?

Given the repeated warnings of coming climate change and environmental degradation from UN panels such as the IPCC; given the fact that southern Ontario – and much of North America – is in the midst of a multi-year drought; given that Great Lakes water levels are at all-time lows and central plains aquifers are being depleted; given that our electrical grid has been pushed to the limit while geologists tell us that Peak Oil will occur – or has occurred – within our lifetime; we must ask whether now is the time to diminish our environment further by destroying the David Dunlap Observatory lands.

Again, I would draw attention to the Spring 2004 edition of U of T Magazine: “People need trees, and lots of them. Each year, Toronto’s trees absorb roughly 28,000 tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of the output of thousands of cars. They also absorb about 1,500 tons of other pollutants, such as smog-causing nitrogen oxides. Not only do we need trees to maintain our health, we need them to nourish our souls.”

Alumni and friends of the University of Toronto have responded generously to the University’s desire for trees. By taking “minimum” donations of $750 per seedling, the University has planted hundreds of new trees on its downtown campus. To celebrate U of T’s 175^th anniversary, for example, F. Ross and Susan L. Johnson made a gift of 175 trees and perennials along King’s College Road and the Sir Daniel Wilson and Knox College walkways. Are not such wonderful gifts diminished if the University forges ahead with sale and destruction of the DDO property – a thriving urban forest that is considerably larger than the St. George campus?

Over many decades, thousands of Richmond Hill students have paid millions of dollars in tuition fees to attend the University of Toronto. To this day, these students graduate with deep technical and critical thinking skills and a desire to build rich lives and communities. After 70years, it is unthinkable that the University would threaten the health of a vibrant community by removing the 189-acre heart that sits in the middle of it.

The fact that these healthy forests and meadows can be sold off for millions of dollars with out regard for, or consultation with, the people who live next to it is emblematic of many of our current social and environmental problems. The ability to speculate, to buy and sell remote tracts of land, mineral rights, water resources and currencies while remaining disconnected — or willfully ignorant of local consequences — explains a great deal about how we have moved close to the brink of our own destruction.

I do not see how the U of T Governing Council, the Town of Richmond Council and the Province can support the sale of David Dunlap Observatory. There is time. And the University should use it.

Sincerely,

Rod Potter

Member of the Richmond Hill Naturalists Executive and long-time Richmond Hill Resident

Supposedly this tragedy happened because Syncrude had not yet deployed “noise cannons ” around the lake to scare off the birds. I dunno — when I first saw similar cannons a few years ago, they were loud and obnoxious, but many birds simply ignored them and came and went as they pleased. I suspect that the tar sands tailing ponds, positioned in the middle of a migratory bird flyway are bound to attract and cause the death of hundreds, if not thousands of birds every year. The Federation of Alberta Naturalists has complained about the tailing ponds for years.

What’s troubling (though not surprising) is that Baird is comfortable talking about open lakes of toxic sludge and environmentally friendly “economic activity” in the same breath. No wonder six Alberta conservation groups are suing Baird for failing to protect endangered bird habitat.

When will this “New” free-market, Conservative government start to encourage sustainable energy development and cancel all oil and gas subsidies.  It’s tragic and immoral that tar sands development is causing the death of so much wildlife. The fact that Canadian taxpayers are helping to fund this carnage through billion-dollar subsidies is just plain stupid.

That's why on March 29th, I'll be at the David Dunlap Observatory in Richmond Hill, Ontario.  For the past 72 years, the Dunlap Observatory has been a place of discovery and wonder for hundreds of astronomers and many thousands of visitors.

When the lights go out in Toronto, we hope to see the same sky that Dunlap's first astronomers saw in 1935.   Unfortunately, this could be the year the David Dunlap Observatory goes dark, forever.  The current owner, the University of Toronto is trying to quickly sell this property to developers. The world is about to lose a historic eye, a powerful eye that has been looking out into space for decades, the same eye that was used by Dr. Tom Bolton in 1972, when he proved the existence of a Black Hole in Cygnus X-1.

If Dunlap closes, my town will also lose a large green space — a much needed urban wilderness — that is home to dozens of bird species, deer, fox, coyote.  Instead we'll have more concrete, more pavement, more noise, more traffic –  and more light pollution. Hundreds of us have been holding rallies, writing letters and attending town meetings to try to convince the University of Toronto to postpone the sale and other levels of government to protect the property.

In the meantime, local residents and groups such as the Richmond Hill Naturalists will continue to fight to save David Dunlap Observatory and the surrounding green space by appearing before the Ontario Conservation Review Board to seek a 100% heritage designation for the property. These same groups are also lobbying York Region to stop plans to widen existing arterial roads such as 16th Avenue to 6 or 7 lanes. 

We need to ask ourselves, our businesses, our governments — and our universities: what is the point? What is the POINT of looking up at the stars if we continue to destroy the Earth beneath our feet?

When hundreds gather at David Dunlap Observatory for this Earth Hour, that question will be blazing in the sky, burning in every star that shines down upon us.

Happy Earth Hour, everyone.

At the same time, Richmond Hill has adapted the growth of the town around the 190 acre park.  It is now the largest and last remaining green space in the middle of town and is much needed by people and animals alike.

U of T should listen to the more than 2000 people who signed this Online Petition and 2000 others who joined the Save David Dunlap Observatory Facebook group. And the 5000 signatures we delivered to the Ontario Legislature and the University of Toronto. The University should also look at the number of newspaper articles, letters, editorials and blogs which have called the sale a "cash grab" or worse.

People do not want to fund the University of Toronto by selling the land beneath our feet.

And then I wake up and realize I'm standing in the middle of a crowded aisle on a VIVA bus, heading to York University. For some unknown reason, the driver refuses to open the roof vents or turn on the air conditioning. The packed load of sweating students sways with nausea as the bus lurches through stop and go traffic, navigates around road construction and dodges the SUVs that routinely cut in front.

Those of us who travel without earbuds are treated to the cacophonous hiss and pop of 30 or 40 iPods which rhythmically bash away at the eardrums of their wearers. 

And then we arrive. And we stagger out of the bus like early morning drunks only to shuffle through a gauntlet of idling buses that spew diesel fumes which gather and linger around the walkways and buildings.

What I want to know is this: if we really are on the verge of Peak Oil; if a barrel of the stuff will soon cost more than $100; if the ice caps are melting, causing half the world to flood and other half to dry out; then, why can't we at least learn to turn off buses when they are parked?  York Region Transit is about to raise fairs to $3 a ride.  How much of this fair increase could be waived if drivers routinely shut off the engines when their buses are stopped for more than 3 minutes.

Of course, I'd prefer to see a car-less world where clean buses rule the roads. In the meantime, can we at least build buses that doesn't spew diesel and irony? Right now, they are choking the life out of us.

At first glance, this eco-plate scheme sounds harmless enough: a low-cost, low-impact bit of PR.  Look a little deeper, however, the the scheme is nothing but a minor Liberal tip-of-the-hat to the wealthiest Ontarians who could (if they wanted) purchase an expensive hybrid car.  The plan will do nothing to help alleviate global warming or get cars off congested roads.  And it will do nothing to improve public transit. In fact, the eco-licence will bring additional traffic and demand for parking.

Sorry Dalton, but we need tougher emissions laws now to make it hard for car makers to sell cars that spew carbon.  Your recently announced $650-million fund to develop green cars in Ontario sounds like money wasted on big auto makers.  Why not direct that fund into an Ontario-grown green transit manufacturer.  Put green buses on the roads and help Ontario industry re-tool to build renewable energy products. Then you might get my Green vote.

After presenting these 4 options, he concludes that our only logical choice is to act to stop global warming. This is because it appears that all things being equal, the cost of acting and being wrong is far less than the cost of being wrong by not acting on climate change. He's right. "Wasting" money to reduce emissions if we don't have to is a much better outcome than global environmental, economic, political and social catastrophe. Bill's argument seems to be air-tight.

While he convincingly presents the 4 possibilities and his arguments are sound, they do not consider the complications that arise from illogical and selfish human thinking. For example:

• Since we know the poor will be more adversely affected by climate change than the wealthy, rich governments and individuals may gamble they will come out ahead by doing nothing.

• Even though spending the necessary money to halt climate change is logical, it will be hard to know for certain that our money will not be stolen or squandered.

In other words, Bill has defined a convenient and useful truth table, but the truth about climate change is much bigger — and much more "inconvenient" — than 4 boxes. But don't listen to me — (trust me, no one does!) — just watch the video and let him know what you think:

I'm not sure if it was due to a fear of plants or an asphalt fetish, but my neighbour recently paved his backyard. About 2 months ago, they also took out most of the trees on the property, including two 50-foot fir trees and the remaining fruit trees that had been planted by Vincenzo, the previous owner (may he never return to see what has become of his former home!).  So, as of this moment, about 3/4 of the property is paved or covered with interlocking stone and most of the lot's carbon sequestering capabilities have been removed.  I'm not a hydrologist, so I have no idea what effect this pavement will have on run-off water quality or the water table, but it can't be good. They won't be fertilizing this over-sized driveway, but they will periodically re-tar it and will probably also use pesticides to keep peripheral weeds from taking over. 

The above photo was pieced together using Autostitch from a dozen or so shots — hence the fish-eye effect.  You can see there is plenty of room for hopscotch and chalk art, but little room for plant life. 

I think I've moved beyond anger about the whole thing, but I can not understand the mind or the aesthetic that desired and was willing to pay for such ugliness. Why pavement? Why now, when gas prices are on the rise? Why now, when we are bombarded with messages about global warming, peak oil and the need to curtail carbon emissions.