To whom it may concern,
I am an Islander and I am deeply in love with this place I call home. That deep love is rooted in the awe-inspiring natural beauty of the lands and waters here and that love of place is what prompts my reaching out to you today.
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen regarding the proposed de-designation of a .72 acre parcel of land in Royalty Oaks from protection under NAPA. To remove the protection of even a portion of Royalty Oaks for ease of traffic flow is foolhardy.
If I understand correctly, protected areas are designated as such due to a publicly held agreement that there is significant value in having that area kept in perpetuity for its own intrinsic worth. This means the land is held in protection from the possible imposition of the passing needs of humans such as improved traffic flow. This means that we, as Islanders, have spoken and said this area is important and must be esteemed as such.
Is anything sacred any more?
I am appalled at this proposition to revoke protection of Royalty Oaks and the lack of proper public consultation during this difficult time as Islanders are living under COVID-19 restrictions. If we have learned anything from this pandemic lockdown I would hope that it is to slow down our busy, overloaded lives, to cast our gaze beyond the immediacy of our own needs and to look at the great potential for change towards the better we have at hand.
This time holds so much possibility for taking this Island in a new direction and as part of this change towards the better we could be looking to remarkably increase our valuing and protection of natural areas here in the knowledge that their beauty and benefits are paramount to the well being and biodiversity of all living things. This would mean closing a loophole in NAPA that allows for revoking protection from publicly owned lands. This would be taking a larger view of meeting needs by extending that view to the needs of the land to exist for its own self and for the myriad other dependent and interdependent creatures thereof. And of course, this would be rather than de-designating a part of an important and beloved natural area.
We would do well to be increasing lands held in perpetuity not eroding the public's trust by removing protection at the whim of a government department's desire for improved roadways. Let us increase goodness and positivity rather than create causes for outrage and uproar such as this proposition for removing protection from part of Royalty Oaks.
I agree completely with Megan Harris' statement that to revoke the NAPA designation in this instance creates a dangerous precedent regarding the protection of public lands. The possibility of an adjacent active living trail is a wonderful idea; tying it into the revocation of NAPA protection of Royalty Oaks is not.
Who chooses what lands get de-designated? Who decides what is "for the public good" in such instances? How will Islanders know their concerns are being listened to?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if COVID-19 taught us to change how we care for this beautiful Island we are privileged as Islanders to call our home. Imagine the possibilities!
Thank you for your time in reviewing my concerns.
Wishing you wellness as you go about your days.
Respectfully, Jill MacCormack
Stratford, PEI
* Fellow Islanders--This letter was written and submitted last week. The date for formally submitting letters has passed although contacting your MLA, TIE Minister Steven Myers and writing to the Guardian newspaper are always still possibilities for outreach.
Be well,
Jill
Comments