You know there is something that always boggles my mind.  Here in Hamilton there has been a debate going on for years (around 50 now) regarding the development of a highway called the Red Hill Creek Expressway.  Around 20 years ago the project was approved and began, then in 1990 funding was pulled by the NDP party who took over power.  Five years later funding was restored and there has been very little work done to complete the project over the last 9 years (not for lack of trying).  Recently (within the last 2 years) another referendum was held to determine whether the project would continue.  The majority of Hamiltonians are in favour of the project; however, that sect who are not continue to cause problems.  The number of lawsuits that have been brought up regarding this issue is remarkable.  The opposition to the highway is for environmental reasons: it will be running through the Red Hill Valley, one of the last remaining areas that is densly populated with trees, streams ... etc in Hamilton.  Although I am in strong support for the highway (Hamilton is quickly becoming a city with a high poverty and homeless rate.  We used to be known for our steel plants; however, as more and more of the factories here close down the economy of the city is suffering terribly.  The completion of the highway will do a number of things to help improve the economy [the least of which is stopping the millions of dollars spent in defending its completion to the courts]) but that does not mean that I am opposed to the environment. 

Although a very touchy issue, the completion of the expressway is not the point here ... if I wanted to argue the pros of it's completion this blog would never end :)  My question is as follows: millions upon millions of dollars are being spent to sue the city, sue the contractors, etc. by those against the completion and millions are being spent in defense of the completion of the highway.  Although the loss of the natural habitat is not great, sometimes these things have to happen for a city to grow.  Why do we not take some of this money being spent on lawsuits, purchase a parcel of land elsewhere and being planting more trees?  Yes, it will not be natural habitat for the fish who live in the polluted Red Hill Creek, nor will it be the trees that have been there for hundreds of years but it will solve some of the issues regarding air pollution that are raised by those against the expressway. 

This is not the most subjective piece I have ever written and for that I appologize.  It just burns my britches that so much money is being wasted to prevent something that is not only inevitable but is necessary when there are many other things that can be done with this money to solve some of the issues raised by those against the highway.  In an attempt to salvage some kind of subjectivity the following links are pro, con and the city's site on this issue.  If you are interested in reading about the red hill project please continue to read into it.     

An article that sums up much of the way I think: http://www.buildtheexpressway.com/default.asp?overview.asp

So as to not appear biased here is the side of the story that I personally disagree with:  http://www.hwcn.org/link/forhv/

Finallym the city of Hamilton website: http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/public-works/capital-planning/red-hill-valley-program/Red-Hill-Valley-Project/rhvp-news.asp

Finally, if there is anyone who reads this who is in support of the anti-red hill project this is not the forum to have a large debate about the issue.  You  are more than welcome to comment on the issue but I will not engage in a lengthy debate on this issue over the comment section of thi sblog.  If you wish to get into a real debate about the pros and cons of the red hill project please go to my profile on msn and send me an email.  I will contact you from there.