10-18-2016, 06:28 AM
I really like the majority of the local LRT reporting it's good for a laugh.
You read the title and and the first few paragraphs and it sounds like trails were ripped up etc. Then the article stumbles to the heart of the matter, the land surrounding the track is all private property and the need for a crossing wasn't identified during the consultation phase as previously discussed. In fact if a crossing is put in place ( which I think should be done) it will be the first crossings for these residents that was technically not trespassing. Don't get me wrong I definitely understand the need for a crossing and the inconvenience this would cause for the local population.
Ideally the titled should read 'More input from the public requested for future infrastructure projects'.
You read the title and and the first few paragraphs and it sounds like trails were ripped up etc. Then the article stumbles to the heart of the matter, the land surrounding the track is all private property and the need for a crossing wasn't identified during the consultation phase as previously discussed. In fact if a crossing is put in place ( which I think should be done) it will be the first crossings for these residents that was technically not trespassing. Don't get me wrong I definitely understand the need for a crossing and the inconvenience this would cause for the local population.
Ideally the titled should read 'More input from the public requested for future infrastructure projects'.