Barrie is expropriating land from two homeowners who refused to give up portions of their front yards needed for a controversial road-widening project.
In a unanimous council vote held without debate on Wednesday night, small portions of the front yards of 937 and 962 Yonge St. in Barrie were formally seized by the city. The move is meant to facilitate the upgrading of a kilometre-long stretch of the street, between Mapleview Rd and Lockheart Rd.
According to Ward 9 councillor Sergio Morales, the decision was seen as necessary in order to safeguard civic transportation infrastructure. “The expropriation of land through Yonge St. will allow us to widen the road to bring it up to the capacity required [in order] for us to meet our housing targets.”
The road-widening project is meant to improve efficiency by adding a secondary north and southbound lanes to the road segment. The $25 million project will also see the construction of a multi-purpose lane open to cyclists and pedestrians, as well as a sidewalk and a central left-turning lane.
The addition of a multi-purpose lane is particularly controversial. According to a recent public opinion survey on Barrie’s traffic infrastructure, just six per cent of respondents felt the needs of bicyclists should be prioritized over those of drivers and pedestrians.
Morales says the addition will prove beneficial to all kinds of commuters, not just those who pedal. “Great separated bike lanes get bikes off the road, which is better for cars and safer for bicyclists as well.”
The city had previously secured similar two- to three-metre slices from 25 other houses along the same stretch of road. At those properties, owners accepted modest payouts based on the market value of the strips of land.
“At these two properties, obviously, we couldn’t come to an agreement — which is why we had to go through appropriations,” says Bala Araniyasundaran, Barrie’s general manager of infrastructure and growth management.
He adds that, despite the council’s decision, it is still possible for the province to step in an block the land seizure. “The landowners still have an opportunity to request a hearing of necessity [to appeal the acquisition]. If they don’t, though, the appropriation goes through.”
While both property owners may have declined the city’s earlier offer to pay for the land, Araniyasundaran says it is unlikely they will be left uncompensated. “Even though they declined it, they will probably receive a similar amount [as had been initially offered] from the city.”
