While my reasons for opposing the proposed highway 424 may not as entertaining as the suggestion cited by Brant MPP Dave Levac calling for a vehicle conveyor belt system, hopefully they are also not as readily dismissible  (Highway 424 Plans Divide Public – August 18).  A few years ago my family and I moved from downtown Toronto to what we then considered to be the relatively idyllic rural countryside east of St. George, Ontario – an opinion which has grown ever since.  To our surprise and dismay we recently discovered that our property is within a disturbingly narrow tract of land unveiled by the Ministry of Transportation as the “preferred corridor” for this proposed highway. 

For admittedly very selfish reasons, we’d rather the provincial government not expropriate our home, or potentially worse, turn the immediately adjacent, agriculturally rich countryside into a highway.  To cite but one reason, we happen to admire the multitudes of wild species that pass through our property and beyond on a daily basis – deer, raccoons, coyotes, wild turkeys, eagles, hawks, owls and vultures to name a few.  Their displacement with an endless procession of transport trucks loudly belching diesel fumes 24 hours a day is an unsettling prospect on many perspectives.  

On a less personal level, despite having attended every public information session held on this subject, it is still entirely unclear to us and to many others why this “preferred corridor” was chosen over thirty some-odd other potential routes, particularly as it violates the Province’s recently touted “Greenbelt” area.  (Out of curiosity, what value is there in establishing a Greenbelt if the same government immediately thereafter decides to built a highway through it?).  It was equally shocking to learn that nearby regions with apparently greater heavy traffic issues such as Paris were not part of this “comprehensive” study.

Mr. Levac may be able to dismiss opinions such as ours on an individual basis (my repeated communications to his office have yet to be returned), but as he may learn too late, thousands of his constituents do not share his unabashed and myopic enthusiasm for this project, at least as currently proposed.  I would suggest that Mr. Levac redirect some of the energies he has employed to fast tracking this sensitive project to address his constituents increasing concerns meaningfully or step aside for someone else who can.

Stephen Pauwels