Many people have a misconception that those people who live in the country are healthier than those who live in cities. In fact sometimes the opposite is true. Country residents are often more likely to be obese, smoke and be sedentary. There are many studies that demonstrate country living is not always more healthy than living in a city. If you live in the country you have further to travel for medical care, you walk less and drive more. In cities you have more opportunities to walk - our children are able to walk to school for example. Modern urban planning recognizes the importance of green space, creating walkable cities, higher density housing, and improving air quality as contributors to more healthy living.
So it is interesting that this past week, the East Hill Development was not sent to a second reading, but referred back to staff at the Regional District of the East Kootenays. This was the result of a letter from the Interior Health Authority about these type of rural subdivisions and how they are not particularly healthy. The letter stated how urban sprawl has a negative outcome on physical activity opportunities which can lead to increased occurences of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and some cancers. It also went on to state that this particular development was too remote from public transit to be a viable option. Interior Health will increasingly be making comment on introduced bylaws such as this rezoning application as they are trying to "link public health to the built environments."
Given what we now know about rural living, should Interior Health be making comment on this type of development? What do you think?
I'm grateful that Interior Health is steppping up to the plate and doing the job of planners. It is silly to talk about sustainablility when this development is so far from town.
ReplyDelete