A message from the Stonebridge Working Group (SWG):
Dear residents of Stonebridge,
The Stonebridge Working Group (SWG) would like to thank everyone who took the time to review and submit feedback on the proposed solution regarding the future of the Stonebridge Golf Course, which was presented to you at the community meeting on July 30th, 2019.
Since the meeting, SWG volunteers have made themselves available to address hundreds of questions on SCA social media channels, the SCA website, email, phone and through numerous scheduled public in-person sessions including three open house Q&A sessions and multiple resident group meetings. The SWG remains open to meeting with resident groups and others as needed. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) have also been created on the SCA website for residents to refer to as new questions arise.
As stated at the July 30th meeting, the purpose of the survey conducted from July 30th to August 20th, was to gauge community sentiment on the proposed solution to secure the longevity of the golf course and limit any further development on the lands past Mattamy’s Phase 16 as well as on the option to finance this solution through a levy. A series of open-ended questions included in the survey offered concerned residents an opportunity to share their thoughts and concerns in more detail. We are taking into consideration all the feedback received as we continue to work with Mattamy and the City to develop a more complete proposal.
As promised at the July 30th meeting, the SWG is providing you the survey results. While we can’t share open-ended individual responses for obvious privacy reasons, we are definitely able to provide an aggregate summary of the two main questions. Please keep in mind that this was not a vote but rather a method for the SWG to collect feedback on the work done to date and to see if there is enough support to keep moving forward. We are also fully aware that some resident opinions may have since changed based on discussions with SWG members and/or responses to your follow-up questions.
Survey Results
Responses were collected from 1368 individuals between July 30th and Aug 20th, 2019. After applying a filter to only include homeowners living in Stonebridge, the total number of responses used for analysis purposes was 1039, which is a significant sample size for a community of approximately 3300 households.
Survey Question: What is your first reaction to the proposed solution?
- Very positive: 27%
- Somewhat positive: 29%
- Neutral: 8%
- Somewhat negative: 15%
- Very negative: 20%
Survey Question: If a vote on the levy was to be held today, how likely would you be to vote in favour of it?
- Extremely likely: 29%
- Very likely: 19%
- Somewhat likely: 16%
- Not so likely: 12%
- Not at all likely: 25%
Based on the above, the SWG feels that the community has demonstrated enough interest in the proposal to move to the next step, which is to ask the City to administer a community-wide vote on the levy. In the meantime, we will continue to make improvements, where appropriate, to the proposal in order to address as many remaining concerns as possible. We are still planning on organizing another community meeting in the early fall to provide you with further details.
Kind regards,
The Stonebridge Working Group (SWG)
I just know that Community will buy this Golf Course. I Very negative to say: Community can not buy it. Because it will need countless money to buy and keep it. Those costs will put on homeowners, it is not fair!
Thanks, Ming. In making your decision, please just consider what the potential “costs” will be for residents of Stonebridge in terms of reduced property values (for everyone – not just those backing onto the course) if the community votes against the levy and the SWG proposal does not go through. There would be nothing legally stopping Mattamy from building on the entire course. What then?
The survey results should be interpreted with great caution, especially when the survey sample is subject to several defects：
First, this is not necessarily 1/3 respondent poll because the survey doesn’t restrict multiple submissions. It is possible that an individual in favour of the proposal filled in many surveys to inflate the share.
Secondly, the representativeness of the sample was not considered——think about our senior residents who are not familiar with online survey.
Thirdly, the survey sample was not randomly drawn. Due to a lack of effort in information, a great number of residents are not aware of the survey, especially those whose houses are not facing the golf course.
Given these caveats, the survey results could be misleading.
Anyways, even if there is a vote, we should vote on the development of Phase 16 in the first place.
The intent of the survey and methodology was already addressed countless times on the SCA’s social media channels to counter the misinformation being spread by a small group of residents. We will be adding an official response to our latest FAQ update shortly. The actual levy vote will be administered by the City and will include one vote per household.
I am sorry, residents of Tamarack’s Half Moon Bay community don’t consider themselves as part Stonebridge community. Don’t ask us to pay your levy.
Here is the boundary for Half Moon Bay community. https://hmbca.ca/about/ The map showing the Stonebridge community is incorrect.
Thanks, we are well aware of the concerns with the original catchment area. We will be issuing an update at the Sep 30th meeting.
I don’t know if the committee was elected by the residence of Stonebridge. I am wondering if ever this committee can make deals or even negotiate deals with the builder representing all residence in the community.
It against our will to pay levy to the builders to just postpone their construction plan.
The committee need to think things through instead of offer bold terms.
Please refer to the complete timeline of events leading up to the selection of the SWG: https://www.stonebridgeca.com/mattamy-phase-16-stonebridge-golf-course-redesign/?v=3e8d115eb4b3
If you oppose the proposal of the SWG, call or email your respective Councillor and send a message directly to him or her as the SWG will bury your opposition to their plan in spin, which it has already done in presenting the results of their online ‘survey.’
The facts are that only 581 properties of the 3300 have shown a positive first reaction (18% of the total properties, not 56% as presented by SWG), and only 664 properties of the 3300 are potentially in favour of a positive vote (20% of the total properties, not 64% as presented by SWG). A more accurate summary of the results is that approximately 20% of the properties in the area of interest have demonstrated some interest in the proposal.
The ‘community’ and special levy should primarily include the +/- 500 homes that directly abut the golf course, not the 3300 homes that the SWG has identified to assist them in helping fund a solution to protect the lot premium they paid. Alternatively, the larger area could contribute a flat fixed fee, with the majority of the funds collected from those who will benefit the most. This model and not the MPAC model presented seems more appropriate.
Most importantly, the Special Levy should not be imposed on properties that were not purchased from either Monarch or Mattamy or to any properties that are outside of the Stonebridge Community Association boundary as noted by D above.
Hi Chris, sorry to hear that you feel your fellow neighbours belonging to the SWG are burying things in “spin”. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and an interpretation of the survey results. At the end of the day, this was meant to be a simple feedback survey not a formal vote. We obtained very valuable qualitative feedback from the community and have used it to further improve the proposal where we can. Hope to see you at the community meeting on the 30th where you are welcome to ask your questions and express your concerns.
I am dismayed by the short-sightedness of views presented by some homeowners, notably those associated with the Stonebridge Facts group. Their comments as reported in the Independent recently suggest that they haven’t been attending the community meetings or that they weren’t paying attention to what has been accomplished. The hard work of the SWG has resulted in a proposal which addresses the primary objective — to maintain the golf course or allow it to revert to green space in the future. While some may have questions, the basic solution is well thought out, logical, and financially reasonable. We should all be rushing to support it to retain our golf course community and protect our property values.
Thanks for your support, George.
I was in attendance at the September 30th Stonebridge meeting and would like to share what I observed (and commented on at the meeting).
1. Those opposed to the proposal (many of whom did not attend earlier sessions) seem to have the impression that there is a golfer vs non golfer bias on the part of the working group. I would respectfully suggest that we recognize that ALL home owners are stake holders as the decision around the golfcourse/greenspace as it impacts our community as a whole. I believe that a statement of facts needs to be developed to correct some misconceptions that were very apparent on the part of those who are opposed to the proposal. Here are some key items that should be included:
1. This proposal is not about people who paid premiums for golf course lots. My understanding is that the proposal allows for those individuals to negotiate directly with Mattamy at their own expense to resolve these matters. That should be made clear.
2. We are extremely fortunate as an association of home owners to have Mattamy at the table to even discuss this matter. They are under no legal responsibility to hear or act upon our concerns. As such, this opportunity to negotiate is a privilege and not a right. We collectively need to understand this.
Many other communities have not have had this opportunity. Perhaps include some newspaper article that discuss how well this is being handled compared to other golf course communities that did not have this opportunity.
3. We as a community association must be mindful of the concerns of ALL homeowners and the economic impact of the proposed solution on households. While the proposed levy is of little consequence to some home owners, there are others who may have financial
hardship or perhaps fixes incomes that are already stretched to the max. Perhaps the association could consider some fund raising events (barbecues, dances, garage sales etc) from which the
proceeds could help to offset the cost of the levies…thereby reducing the out of
pocket portion for all. The Working Group needs to identify what is at the root of the negative vote and have a solution to mitigate some of those concerns. If the concern is financial, then let’s think of a way to mitigate that…How about a voluntary donation of $5 that can be added to every round of golf played for those who have particular interest in the Golfcourse. This money could go directly to reducing the money charged for the levy over time…perhaps those feeling negative would feel differently if the association could come
up with creative ways to fund then levy from within the community by utilizing the golf club facility for more planned events…how about one day a week where an esthetician comes in to do massages, manicures, pedicures etc for people in the community with a portion going to the levy fund. This would also bring more business to the clubhouse which might increase the profitability of the golfcourse operation which might entice Mattamy to look more favourably on keeping the course in operation for longer. More than just golfers could
patronize the golf course facility. Perhaps a brainstorming session around fund raising would be helpful. My suspicion is that the funding may be a concern for many of the negative
side. How would they feel about the proposal of the cost was less? And can we creatively make the cost less as a community?
4. I clearly got a sense of division in the community and there needs to be a move to understand the concerns of all homeowners and to address them. There are language barriers, economic barriers and information barriers that seem to be driving the negative sentiments. These will have to be addressed if we wish to have a meaningful and informed vote in our community. You can add my name
to any list you may wish to create to help with the process of reaching the individuals in the community whose opposition results from lack of facts, financial concerns or other unidentified concerns. We only have one shot at a
vote and it might even be wise to delay the vote if possible. Have you considered having a meeting exclusively for the “no side” so that there is more inclusive
community involvement?
Sorry form the ramble….This is essentially a referendum on the future
of our community…almost like a Brexit vote…and there will be no turning back when the votes are cast.