TBayTel Green Tec Recycling Event 2013
Aboriginal Initiatives
Brand New You
Stride Orthopaedics & Footwear
Mallon's Corporate Impressions
Confederation College
Chainsaw Centre and Equipment
Opinion
Click here to see more
Subscribe

Community Calendar
Click here for full listings.

Poll
Polls are not available.
Polls are not available.
View Results Past Polls

Market Research

Do you own your own home?
Who's Modo
User Submitted Photo Gallery
Submit Your Own Photos
Email
2012-07-06 at NOON

LETTER: Moving park best solution to flood issues

Caesar J. B. Squitti, Thunder Bay
NO FEE! NO FUSS!Finally... Prepaid credit cards with NO transaction fees! Find it at Xtra Cash!Click here for full list of services

LETTER:  Moving park best solution to flood issues

With the current focus on dealing with the spring flooding problems of Old Fort William perhaps all those concerned should take this opportunity to move the facility back much closer to its original site on the Kam River near the mouth of Lake Superior.

Perhaps the park can be placed on the opposite side of the river on Mission Island. 

Not only should this avoid the problems of spring flooding from ice jams, but this would also bring the facility within the city limits.

It would make it much more accessible to those within the city.

Caesar J. B. Squitti
Thunder Bay, Ontario

iCar

Click here to report a typo or error

Tbnewswatch.com(12)

Comments

We've improved our comment system.
tsb says:
Fort William Historical Park already is within city limits, and moving it would cost far more than annual flood repairs.
7/6/2012 12:55:03 PM
wayne says:
I agree tsb. I can't even imagine the cost of relocating that park. Build that $8 million dirt wall that was announced and funded three years ago and get'r done!
7/6/2012 6:39:24 PM
caesarjbsquitti says:
The actual site would be on McKellar Island, across the way from the original site, and while the site may be within the city limits, the original site would make it much more accessible to the majority of the citizens with only a few minutess by car.

Would the a site closer to the city nucleous be more advantageous to its marketing and attendence ?
7/7/2012 6:13:08 AM
tsb says:
The amount of land that FWHP takes up today would require remediation of a third of McKellar Island, and the relocation of Thunder Bay Terminals and Island Drive. The current location is "in the middle of the forest" and provides a more authentic experience. You want to move it to a location across from a rail yard.

Where it is now is quite optimal. Most cities have a large attraction on their periphery. Moncton has Magnetic Hill, Toronto has Wonderland, Winnipeg has Birds Hill, we have FWHP.
7/7/2012 5:29:01 PM
wayne says:
Caeser, check with the LRCA first. Those wetlands (and there is a reason why they are wetlands). There is not enough room on Mckellar Island to relocate the 25 acres of the existing FWHP. Parking, campgrounds, amphitheatre to host 50,000 people, observatory, 42 buildings, a farm, Ojibwa village etc. What about the costs associated with environmental assessment, site preparation, infrastructure (sewage, water, electricity)? This would cost at least $60 million, not including the solution investment of $8 million to resolve the flooding at the existing site.

Do your homework before you suggest crazy dreams.
7/7/2012 10:42:16 PM
wayne says:
"the original site would make it much more accessible to the majority of the citizens with only a few minutess by car."

only a few minutes by car for the majority of citizens, really? lol do you not understand the concept of tourism or have any idea how long it takes to drive to that location from the residences of the majority of city? how many times a year do you visit the Old Fort? camp/RV park there? quit dreaming and focus on reality and not on spending provincial tax dollars that we cannot afford.
7/7/2012 11:05:42 PM
Big Head says:
You've got to be kidding! Don't put ideas like that into city council's head! They'll do it! Why? Because it will cost millions. And it won't go there. It will go by the Marina. Because that's where everything goes.
7/8/2012 10:01:37 AM
TBDR says:
Clearly you did as much (little to no) research as Mr. Squitti. FWHP has nothing to do with the City. It is a provincially funded tourism location.
7/10/2012 10:37:48 AM
citizenreporter says:
The park is situated where it is for historical reasons, I believe. You Can't changed history. Even when there is flooding.
7/8/2012 12:16:31 PM
hadenough says:
Sorry, historically it was at the mouth of the Kam and nowhere near it's current location.

I'm sure it flooded in the past too.
7/9/2012 4:22:49 PM
tsb says:
It's current location is Pointe de Meuron, the starting point for the Wolesley Expedition to crush the Riel Rebellion. That historic connection is why they chose to build it in that particular bend in the river. Otherwise they probably would have put it at the old Riverside Raceway site, or on one of the islands.
7/9/2012 5:26:25 PM
or$en says:
the fort where it is is fine.
from anywhere in the city it takes maybe 10 mins extra from the original location. a berm make more sense than relocation.

what does bother me is the banning of fishing there. the dock and floating canoe docks were a great place for kids to catch fish. now banned ..yet i pay taxes for this park and the waterway is treated as private.just another loss for my my kids
7/9/2012 11:08:26 PM
Comments for this story are semi-moderated. Read our comment guideline.

Add a new comment.
You must log in to add comments.
Create a new account
Forgot password?
Log In
 
 
© 2013 Dougall Media.