Done, times four so far this spring. And they were trees that I started from seeds and cuttings.

God, I love spring!

The survey was entirely anonymous and voluntary.

Moving the Wolfe Island terminal out of downtown would also, potentially, create a nice location for a little waterfront park and a bit of parking right across the road from the LVEC.

As a former resident of Amherst Island I don't like the idea of bridging the gap for Wolfe Island, either. Virtually all my family still lives on the Island and its serenity and separation are very much part of the appeal. The building of a fixed connection effective turns the island into a sort of headland, which would absolutely make it easier to live on, easier to develop and, most likely, wash away the existing culture of the island..

I don't like to see the lights on any longer than they need to me - to me they speak to an extravagance and waste of electricity. Although I am wholeheartedly a hypocrite because I put up lights and a tree and all that.

As for when it's appropriate? I think if you asked a veteran or a soldier who died in a conflict to protect the freedoms of our nation or any other nation they would remind us that they fought for *all* freedoms, including the freedom to choose on your own when you can put up and turn on Christmas lights.

I would rather not see them until two weeks before Christmas, but that's just my opinion. It's up to each person themselves to choose when they turn on their lights. What bothers me more, I think, is the people who just don't take them down - I have three neighbours (on a street with less than 20 houses) who have lights that are going on three Christmases without having been taken down.

There are sources of water available in those locations. Either you don't know or are trying to obfuscate the reason for the ban - to reduce the number of plastic bottles in the city. Which is a worthy goal; absolutely.

Furthermore I thin anyone who goes to McDonalds to buy a salad expecting that it's a healthy choice is only fooling themselves. McDonalds cleverly lists the salads separately from the dressing in its nutritional information sheets and many of them are anything but a healthy alternative.

For example: a Big Mac contains 29g of fat... and so does the Renees Mighty Caesar Dressing - and that's just the dressing.

Yes, the camping is only for events.

If you look at the results of the survey that was put forward to the public in consultation for the renovations of Lake Ontario Park the question of camping (with tents), on a scale of 1 to 5, received a 4.00 from the respondents. The same rating as did the "Events area". In fact camping received a higher rating than Food services (3.77), Outdoor performance area (3.91), the splashpad (3.87). More than Ornamental gardens (3.12) and Improved public transit access (3.98).

To say that camping was not a priority for the people who responded to the survey is false.

In fact on the "preferred uses" question the only things that scored higher than tented camping were mostly non-structural: Pavilion, Improved Trails, Winter Uses, Children’s Playground, Picnic Area, Habitat Restoration, Swimming area (beach), Natural areas.

Another question that was asked was whether "revenue generating uses should be considered in
support of ongoing park operation.." to which 92.7% agreed. The former campground, and future over-night campgrounds would be revenue generating uses.

In the "park improvement scenarios" question the "camping emphasis" scenario comes last - but I am 100% in favour of having camping in the park, but I certainly don't feel that it should be the *emphasis* of the park. There was a separation of 9% between the "winning" scenario and the "lowest scoring" scenario, which clearly doesn't label any one scenario clearly triumphant.

Incidentally what the overall study shows is that the people who filled out the form didn't really understand all of the questions because the "Programmed Waterfront Emphasis" plan received the highest amount of support however the elements that would create such a plan - Short Term Docking, Launching Area, swimming instruction ("Day-use programs"), etc - scored amongst the lowest in the preferred elements section.

The survey that was conducted was by no means an excellent survey as it was written and it certainly didn't show conclusive results regarding the residents of the city's wishes for the purpose for the park, and especially the camp ground.

You say the majority spoke, but let's not confuse the fact. The majority of the minority who got out and voted spoke. The majority - the very vast majority - opted not to get out at all. The current Mayor-elect enjoys a mandate from what will shake out to be approximately 15% of the overall voting population of Kingston.

That's 3 in 20. Hardly a resounding mandate by any stretch.

And as for the notion that there wasn't a driving issue, or a candidate worth to get off the couch for I say: the election is the thing. The election *is* the issue, it's what's worthy of getting off the couch for. We cannot and should not give those voters who chose to not vote an out, a reason for not engaging and not using their voice.

The election is the thing - and, well, that should be enough.

Well, obviously you're just confused. Very, very confused.

I know that they had to approve the plan - they had to approve the plan in as much as they *could* approve the plan at that point. No one had dug into the ground there yet, no one had checked the visual impact of the buildings on the location yet - all of which would be covered by Phase 2. Some of which may have resulted in changes to the plan. Yes, they had to *submit* the plan, but it did not, did not, *did not* set *that* plan in stone.

The rezoning, yes, the grading plan, yes, all of that was going to be studied in Phase 2, but the fact of the matter is that no foundations were going to be poured, no roads were going to built, none of Gerretsen's dreaded "have-nots" were going to be moved in by moving forward with Phase 2. You know that and yet you completely try to lie about the facts of the matter.

In order to move forward with the Phase 2 *STUDY* the city has to approve the *concept* plan. This concept plan, yes, was the one the design which some people didn't necessarily agree with, but it was a starting point for the affordable housing project in Barriefield. The study was needed in order to be able to dig around the area and look for dinosaurs, burial grounds or old pottery - any of which could have necessitated a change to the plan... so I ask how you can say "THAT plan" was the only plan they could move forward with. The date of completion of the Phase 2 study was June 2011 - moving forward with Phase 2 gave us time to perfect the plan.

It was a plan that satisfied the requirements for the federal government for the purchase of the land.

As for the Affordable Housing Development Committee on which Mr. Gerretsen sits, if you want to talk about being hypocritical, that group made the statement at the September 7th meeting that seniors are not a priority and yet Gerretsen's platform is supposed to be senior-centric. Gerretsen also spoke positively of the development at the August 19th AHDC meeting pointing out that affordable housing for seniors in Barriefield could free up other units across the city as seniors move to Barriefield and that it's beneficial - through plans like Barriefield - to increase the general "stock" of affordable housing.

...then he voted against it. One wonders how he would have voted if the rest of the AHDC had have told him to vote the other way? So much for being his own man as he supposedly claimed to be in today's paper - although I notice that he's dropped the "others have told me" crap; I'm glad he got my message on that.

Furthermore the AHDC has a history of calling plans "not enough" and pointing out that they're not the best plan for the target area; Barriefield was not, by any means, unique in that regard.