MARTIN KEYSER

Member since 20 July 2026

All input submitted by this participant

Trending ideas have loaded.

MARTIN KEYSER2 months ago I wish to make some general comments about the tone of the amendments, having been an objector to a few developments and having dealt with the City officials involved in this: the City is not protecting existing home owners enough, there is a deluge of developments, complicated documentation, and it becomes very expensive to analyse them properly or even just have enough time to do so The City has all the rate payers' emails adressess- why not just notify us using that contact mechanism - the posting of notices is fine, if done in conjunction with emailing residents.. my experience is the City officials are so pro development, they readily engage with developers, but ignore engagement with neighbours and residents in my specific objection to a proposed development, the MPT majority decision criticized the CIty officials of being biased in favour of the the developer and ignoring the legitmitae objections and concerns raised by neighbours and residents. The prosed amendments make it even more onerous on residents to object or obtain information I believe the opposite should be happening such as in cities like Amsterdam where intense scrutiny is levelled at new developments to ensure existing rights are not harmed, and mistakes are not made as mistakes are very difficult to rectify once developments have taken place. The over tenor of the process is developer and City vs neighbours/community/voters. The City officials need to pay closer regard to the voters and what those constituencies want.