Avonwood’s first objection to OPA 10 is that market data on which OPA 10 is based are flawed. Avonwood submitted that since the major retail policy initiatives of OPA 10 flow directly from (the recommendations of) the CNS 2002 and it is flawed, OPA 10 is itself flawed and should not be approved by the Board. ...
Counsel for the City did not agree that the CNS 2002 was in any way flawed and pointed out the lengthy process by which it was reviewed before being adopted by Council. They also pointed out that Council waited almost five years before adopting OPA 10.During that period, updated data about retail store vacancies in the Downtown Core and information about commercial retail in the City as a whole came available and were used to measure the validity and applicability of the data collected in 2000 for the CNS 2002. I was also told that during this period both the overall thrust as well as the specific policies of the Sorensen-prepared version of OPA 10 were subjected to rigorous analysis and close examination, and were found to be fundamentally sound. ...
I find on the evidence then that the City-adopted OPA 10 is not “flawed” as submitted by Avonwood.
Colin Hefferon
No comments:
Post a Comment