Larga Baffin opponents reject ‘bigotry’ accusations
Ontario Land Tribunal decision on new boarding home’s proposal expected ‘as soon as possible,’ chairperson says
An Ontario Land Tribunal hearing about a new facility for Larga Baffin in Ottawa wrapped up on Friday with a decision expected “as soon as possible” from the tribunal. Pictured here is an architectural rendering of the proposed building, which could accommodate up to 350 clients at a time. (Image courtesy of DTAH Architects)
An Ottawa neighbourhood association is rejecting allegations that its opposition to a new Larga Baffin care facility is rooted in “bigotry,” as an Ontario Land Tribunal hearing about the proposed build wrapped up on Friday.
“The [Upper Hunt Club Community Association] formally denounces the inflammatory allegations of racism and bigotry as being unfounded,” said a news release issued by president Sylvie Lee on Friday, hours after the end of four days of virtual hearings.
The community association had appealed Ottawa city council’s approval for Larga Baffin to build a new facility in their neighbourhood, not far from the airport.
Larga Baffin wants to build a new 350-bed facility for the boarding home that serves Nunavummiut while they receive advanced medical care in Ottawa. At its current site on Richmond Road, Larga Baffin can accommodate only 195 guests.
Last July, Ottawa city council approved Larga Baffin’s application to build a six-storey facility in the Upper Hunt Club neighbourhood, bringing the centre closer to the Ottawa International Airport and increasing its size.
However, the Upper Hunt Club Community Association appealed council’s decision, citing concerns about the size of the building, increased traffic and parking problems, among other issues.
That appeal went before the Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing that began Tuesday.
In letters written to the City of Ottawa that Larga Baffin’s lawyer Michael Polowin submitted as an exhibit, some opponents of the new facility listed concerns such as increased loitering, “homeless usage” of the nearby Sieveright Park, and the potential for “unlawful” activities if Larga Baffin were to take up residence in the neighbourhood.
Polowin blasted the comments as “bigotry” the likes of which he had never seen in his nearly four decades practising law.
However, UHCCA president Sylvie Lee said the group’s members reject that characterization and said citizens’ comments were “repeatedly cited out of context and distorted.”
“These attacks, along with character-disparaging comments during the appeal, were meant to distract from the real matters at issue,” Lee said.
“The appeal issues were based on land use planning, transportation and traffic safety issues,” she said.
The hearing had been set to run for five days but came to a close after only four days.
Flogging that overheard word sure brings in the comments and views, right Nunatsiaq?
Don’t buy it? Go to the main page, scroll down to the section called advertising and see for yourself; site visits, number of comments, all held out to potential advertisers.
Like it or not, you deserve to know that the price of admission is your limbic system response.
By now it should be obvious that all criticism of this development, and the improper approval process that has led us here, is necessarily the product of racism. No valid complaints can exist against this monstrosity.
Largo and its supporters should be embarrassed. Their approach to all this has been so ham-handed it’s comical – divide people, create tension and ignore all criticism?
Agreed, yet this is consistent with the spirit of the times. Someone cries ‘bigot’ or ‘racist’ and the headlines light up, entire articles dedicated to and amplifying the outrage. All the incentives point toward the use of these ‘strategies’ as the best use of energy.
For its part the media operates on its own distorted incentive systems. Having lost its patience or desire to tease out nuance and complexity, it too opts for the more rewarding spectacle that enhances ‘reader engagement’
The comments are very clearly racist. There is absolutely no reason to oppose this development. Would these people have the same opposition to 300 room luxury hotel? I think 99.9% that they wouldn’t.
Point us to one comment that is “very clearly racist”?