((QUOTE SOURCE="https://www.facebook.com/notes/karen-cilevitz/response-to-letter-to-the-editor-and-online-comments-in-the-rh-liberal/566394806743418" DOWNLOAD_UTC="20140515T191602Z" COMMENT="dots for ellipsis or speaker-pause are from Karen Cilevitz, not from Toomas Karmo")) Response to Letter to the Editor and online comments in the RH Liberal September 5, 2013 at 4:17am LTE in Thursday's RH Liberal from Kathy Mochnacki whom I know and respect: http://www.yorkregion.com/opinion-story/4062329-bravo-to-naturalists-for-continuing-observatory-fight/ There are some misconceptions in Ms. Mochnacki's letter which I believe require comment from the Chair of the group, and member of their mediation team, who have fought through blood, sweat and many, many tears over many, many years, to preserve and protect this iconic property and Observatory in the southern heart of our Town. Ms. Mochnacki writes: "If the whole site could be saved from development then there is hope the historic observatory telescope could continue to be a viable instrument and significant wildlife will not perish with the destruction of their habitat." The operative word here is "If". We have fought for nearly 7 years to save this site. Almost half of those the DDO Defenders and RHNaturalists stood side by side. Alliances were forged. Friendships were formed. Disparate people brought together through a hope that their dream to save and protect an historic site could be realized, brought together to step up to the public plate and try to right a terrible wrong wrought by the University of Toronto. "If". Such a simple word with such profound connotation. Ms. Mochnacki speaks in the present tense. The time to speak in the present tense has passed. Respectfully, Ms. Mochnacki did not identify herself as a Participant before the Board during the long lead-up to the OMB hearing nor at the hearing itself. So, unfortunately, and very specifically, the time for a statement such as this has passed. "If" it had been made then..... The RH Naturalists CHOSE of their own free will NOT to participate in mediation, a crucial event in the life of the fight for the Dunlap. The DDO Defenders very deliberately chose to participate in this crucial event. The RHNaturalists also chose to be led in an entirely different direction to that of the DDO Defenders. The DDO Defenders, yes through my guidance, chose to take a very different path for very specific, entirely legitimate reasoning."If" other choices had been made by the RH Naturalists..... With all due respect to Ms. Mochnacki, the second part of her sentence above is incorrect. We believe, with testimony from the RH Naturalists own expert witness, former DDO astronomer Tom Bolton, stating that should the development to the east of Observatory be appropriately dealt with by the Town (in agreement with Corsica and in consultation with the DDO Defenders), the research capability of the Dunlap telescope as a viable scientific instrument in the middle of an urban apron could be ameliorated to the extent its true functionality could continue. ((INTERPOSED_COMMENT FROM="Toomas Karmo")) Karen is here trying to recount Prof. Bolton's OMB testimony. Although Prof. Bolton admitted the possibility of "amelioration", using that word, he made it clear that even ameliorative measures would compromise (in his words, "limit" research, without "precluding" research; OMB court-reporter transcript for 2012-08-17, pp. 917-918). Prof. Bolton never used the words "true functionality". Far from saying that the "true functionality" of DDO could continue, he deprecated the envisaged development, using in this context the phrase "highest and best use" in place of Karen's phrase "true functionality", and asserting that "highest and best use" would not be adequately protected by measures envisaged (transcript, p. 897). So I submit, as "Fair Comment" within the meaning of Canadian libel law (keeping here particularly in view Simpson v. Mair and WIC Radio Ltd. (2007) at Supreme Court of Canada), the comment that Karen Cilevitz, for whatever motive, misrepresents Bolton. - I impute neither malicious intent nor innocent inadvertence, i.e., I herewith write nothing on the question of motive. Indeed I do not even inwardly and silently form any conjectured answer to the question of motive, and so am immune even from a hypothetical Orwellian-jurisdiction Thoughtcrime prosecution or suit. To assist any lawyers who may have to look at the libel-law issue here, in determining whether I have tortiously injured Karen in expressing my "Fair Comment" judgement that she misrepresents Bolton, I remark that the testimony-in-bulk, both directly relevant to Karen's representation of the Bolton testimony and peripherally relevant to Karen's representation of the Bolton testimony, reads as follows: ((QUOTE SOURCE="2012-08-17 transcript, p. 897")) ((SNIP)) the buffers that are shown in Schedule C of the Minutes of Settlement, which extend over into the Official Plan Amendment in various forms - in particular the Plan of Subdivision you see here - are, in my opinion, inadequate to protect the operation of the Observatory and the "Great Telescope" in its hightest and best use which is as a research facility ((SNIP)) ((/QUOTE)) ((QUOTE SOURCE="2012-08-17 transcript, pp. 903-904")) COMMENT="with reference to by-law")) ((SNIP))having considered it briefly, it's not clear to me that there's any possibility of ameliorating the effects of these nearby developments. There are really two effects here: one is the effect of lighting is proportional to distance, roughly a square of the distance. So while there's an absorption effect in the atmosphere that increases the rapidity at which the light falls off with distance - if impacts of light fall off with distance. In my opinion, the Hillsview Drive neighbourhood, what I call Hilly Drive, with a street in, street in, is so close to the dome that it is going to be a significant additional increment to the sky brightness above the dome and the zenith direction immediately around the zenith. That's also true for the closest part of the development along Bayview. But it's difficult to be quantitative about that because without knowing the exact layout of the street lighting and how many lights are going to be and where they're going to be, it's just not possible to compute the lighting effect. ((/QUOTE)) ((QUOTE SOURCE="2012-08-17 transcript, pp. 906")) Limit is - becomes an issue of where do you draw the line. So I would prefer there be no light pollution and from main developemnt. Clearly, that's not going to be possible, but I - as far as the development closest to the dome, I believe that is a serious issue for several reasons and the - I really think that development - that part of the development should not occur. ((/QUOTE)) ((QUOTE SOURCE="2012-08-17 transcript, pp. 908-909")) ((SNIP)) there are things that could be done to ameliorate the problem to some extent. The - you know, without - that's something that would have to be looked at, at the lighting design, the site plan or subdivision agreement, I'm not sure. You need a site plan agreement stage, I believe. The - that development is not much below the height of the Observatory and mounting streetlights in that area on nine-metre poles, 30-foot poles, would be detrimental, particularly with the loss of trees that's going to happen with that development. If the lights were mounted in 18-foot poles they - it would be better. But that has consequences maybe not desirable for the developer. Q. So that's the best way to limit the impacts? A. To limit the impacts? Well, the best way to limit the impact there is not to develop it. ((/QUOTE)) ((QUOTE SOURCE="2012-08-17 transcript, pp. 917-918")) Q. And so your biggest concern is that the development might preclude the future use of the dome for research purposes? A. Well, not preclude, but limit would be the way I would put it. You have to understand that this - the 74-inch telescope is one of the premiere telescopes in the world. it has image quality of a tenth of an arc second which is unmatched by larger telescopes. It has - it is the most efficient spectroscopic telescope in the world. So the importance of it for research cannot be understated - overstated. Q. Yeah. I got it. A. But I want to make sure it's on the record. ((/QUOTE)) ((QUOTE SOURCE="2012-08-17 transcript, pp. 934-935")) Q. Would you be able to - can you quantify what you would consider the maximum acceptable light level for the Observatory to be used scientifically? A. That depends on what kind of observation you're talking about. The - for imaging observations, probably about a half-magnitude of light pollution would be the limit that you'd want to deal with we're - at zenith. Now, we're talking about the - at a half-magnitude, the brightness, when it goes up as you go farther away from the zenith towards the horizon. So you'd be limiting yourself away from zenith at half-magnitude. Now different observers (inaudible) imaging - I'm not an imaging scientist - would have a different - different numbers for that. For spectroscopy, it could be brighter because spectroscopy you're spreading light out into a spectrum. The light from streetlights comes in a series of emission lines, so it's like looking through a picket fence, and it's not a very dense picket fence. And so for many purposes you could - for spectroscopic puproses, in most cases at least, you could tolerate quite a bit more light pollution. Q. And spectroscopy is something that the Observatory does, right? A. That's right. Q. Right? A. That's right. For spectroscopy, you also have the opportunity, with modern electronic detectors, to subtract sky brightness, so the sky spectrum, So you take one from the other and while you can't do that for any brightness of sky without affecting the observation of the star, you can do it for a considerably brighter sky than you can do for imaging. ((/QUOTE)) ((QUOTE SOURCE="2012-08-17 transcript, pp. 937-938" COMMENT="with reference to Illuminating Engineering Society (IES)")) Q. And, as I understand it, and I don't know if you already - I apologize if you already answered this - but if the Town of Richmond Hill were to amend its lighting By-Law or in some other way add to it, would that change your opinion of the proposal before the Board, or is possible that it would change your opinion? A. "Possible" is too hypothetical to answer. Q. Let me see if I can rephrase it then. Is there a way that the By-law could be amended so that you could support this proposal? A. Well, I don't think that the By-law has to be amended to - for - to make the impact of the lighting less than it is. What has to be done is to decide that the lighting will be - that rather than the recommended minimum standards by IES being the maximum that it will acdtually go below the standards of the IES for lighting on the site. If the Town were willing to do that then that owuld certainly ameliorate, it wouldn't necessarily - it wouldn't eliminate, but it would ameliorate the effects. ((/QUOTE)) ((QUOTE SOURCE="2012-08-17 transcript, pp. 940-941")) Q. And if this development is approved and there is some development that occurs in the future, as a scientist, I presume if you were still involved in the Observatory, you would do your best to - you know, you would do your best to continue research in whatever circumstances you find yourself? A. Yes. Q. Now, I understand the concerns that you've expressed. Do you - and I think you said earlier you don't believe that this development has to make the Observatory useless; it just might make it more difficult to use? A. Well, it can limit what it can do, and how much it limits it depends on what's done with the development. ((/QUOTE)) ((/INTERPOSED_COMMENT)) The "significant wildlife" will still have 60% of the undeveloped and protected site on which to live - including heavily wooded areas, wetlands, grasslands, and woodlots, with little human foot traffic through its environmentally sensitive area cocooned in a protective darkness within the urban landscape. The historic buildings saved and hopefully rehabilitated to full, functional adaptive public re-use. Is this not what we were all fighting for? The northeastern portions of the site were fundamentally indefensible before the Board, from a planning perspective beholden to the Planning Act to which the OMB must defer, a fact known to all parties. Through mediation and subsequent OMB decision, the 99+12 acres which have been protected and conserved contain not only the majority of green open space, but also the majority of the site's significant woodlots, including the heritage woodlot, and almost the entire wetlands area. This acreage also contains all the principle heritage structures, including one, the Pump House, which was not identified by the Conservation Review Board and left entirely at risk. The DDO Defenders saw to it that this historically important built structure would be conserved. The DDO Defenders attended mediation and, as spoken by all the other parties in attendance, without our very important participation, the final outcome as described in the Dunlap settlement agreement, would not have come to pass. It is exactly for the reasons Ms. Mochnacki states in her letter regarding precious greenspace needed by all the residents of Richmond Hill that we fought, side by side with the Town, the Region and the TRCA, to save and protect the most significant, connected portions of the Dunlap site to ensure the formulation of the largest destination park in Richmond Hill. A park for all. A park containing within it the historic Dunlap Observatory and Telescope. A unique and most beloved urban green oasis in which our residents, and those beyond, can enjoy respite, relaxation and recreation. The outcome of Dunlap mediation and subsequent OMB hearing is not a failure. It is in fact an achievement. An achievement brought about despite daunting odds and immeasurable sacrifice by those who have dedicated the past 7 years of their lives to bring to fruition. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not. But it is without doubt THE BEST solution realized through extreme dedication of altruistic investment to a singular cause. A solution, myself as an individual, and the DDO Defenders as a whole,would not have agreed to had it not been in the very best interests of the Dunlap site, the Town of Richmond Hill and her residents. Those who have been so intimately involved in the grassroots struggle to protect and preserve the Dunlap site have given of themselves in ways both trying and exhilarating, emotionally and physically. I will state again what I have said from the outset – I believe it is time for everyone to come together and stand united behind a decision which has been years in the making, a decision which is of itself a positive outcome. Let us celebrate that which we have, that which was so hard fought. It is time for us not to mourn and anguish what has been lost, but time to embrace all that has been gained. Time to put negativity behind us, on all levels, and look ahead only to that which is positive and filled with so much promise. Our work is not done, there is still much which requires completion. This matter should not be dividing us. It should in fact be bringing us all together to courageously step forward and ensure all next steps in the Dunlap saga are appropriately accomplished. There are so many reasons to move forward. So many good and valid reasons. Let’s use the future time needed to truly and constructively realize the "Dunlap Dream" and not get mired in past what "ifs" and "if" only's. Ms. Mochnacki's letter to the Liberal Editor is her opinion, I respect it as such and recognize there are people who feel this way. However, my opinion, and that of the majority, is that I believe it is time for us all to embrace our remarkable Dunlap gains and move to the next pro-active and positive level as we deal with the rest of all the necessary protocols to come our way as the Dunlap Lands are safely and thankfully conveyed to public ownership. This is our celebration, not our wake. It is extremely unfortunate that one individual chose to denigrate myself and the DDOD Board in his misguided comments online to the original Liberal article. This individual was purposefully moved from any "leadership" position of the DDO Defenders very early on in our formation for very specific and obvious reasons. His highly regrettable verbal attack of myself and our organization from his own postings are absurdly incorrect and require no further comment from myself or our organization. The DDOD Board of Directors, and the DDO Defenders are most definitely not misnamed. We are in fact most appropriately named! I am most definitely not a "bulldoze loving" person and to state such is completely unfounded, negatively influenced and quite nonsensical. The DDO Defenders, proud bearers of that title, did not participate in and/or sign onto a process and outcome which "lost" 40% of the Dunlap Lands. We, together with the Town of Richmond Hill, the Region of York and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, participated in and signed onto a dedicated process and its remarkable outcome which saw 60% of the Dunlap Lands, together with all its provincially identified heritage structures, saved, protected, conserved and preserved. An outcome which achieved far greater positive and commendable results that could ever have been borne out without the occurrence of the 5 party mediation from which it resulted. That is our achievement. And, hopefully, as time moves forward and the Dunlap Lands and their Legacy become safely entrenched under public ownership and stewardship, that is what will be cheered and lauded. By all. I am extremely proud of our achievements and I continue to be greatly encouraged by the vast majority of people who thankfully recognize and applaud the difficult, remarkable journey the aptly-named DDO Defenders have, and will continue to, undertake. For all the right reasons. ((/QUOTE))