| PROUD HISTORY X
If Democracy Was a Game, This Would Be Cheating
by
David Serafino
No one likes to be deceived. When you find out you have been,
it’s likely you won’t feel kindly toward your
deceiver. So how does the deceiver react to being found out?
The PROUD executive may be feeling rather sheepish these
days. After three years of manipulating public opinion with
misleading statements regarding the Port Place development
proposal, this residents group is about to enter an arena
where what they say will be scrutinized for accuracy. There
is no point in misrepresenting the facts at the OMB.
It didn’t have to be this way. As a founding member
of PROUD helping to establish the Port Dalhousie Heritage
District, The Peer hoped to serve as a forum for sensible
discussion and debate regarding a proposal to develop Port
Dalhousie’s commercial core. Unfortunately, those opposed
to the development dominated PROUD and began a campaign of
deceit and intimidation, forcing The Peer to counter their
misrepresentation.
IF DEMOCRACY WAS A GAME…
The methodology of this newly constituted “PROUD”
was publicly exhibited on June 28, 2005 at the public information
meeting mandated by the province’s Planning Act. Here
is where it became clear that PROUD was not interested in
debating the issues but to turn public opinion against the
project by silencing those in support rather than by presenting
a better argument. The development team’s heritage architect
was booed and heckled when he attempted to answer a question
posed by a PROUD member. Anyone speaking in support of the
project was also booed and heckled. If democracy was a game,
this would be the equivalent of cheating.
THE PROUDITE* MINDSET
(*Proudite: Anyone who adheres to PROUD's beliefs)
One thing must be understood about the Proudites—They
are not bad people. They are, for the most part, our neighbours
who just happen to share a belief that they and Port Dalhousie
will suffer from allowing anything higher than three stories
to be built. This may seem like a simplistic analysis but
that is what it boils down to.
The Site Plan and Heritage Application, produced by the developers
(at great expense) describe in detail how heritage assets
will be conserved. Unfortunately, these applications will
be rejected in whole by the Proudite mindset simply because
it calls for exceeding the three-storey height limit. Never
mind that more public space will be created, that the commercial
core will function better both economically and socially and
that we will no longer have to be accosted by overflowing
garbage cans or unsightly utility lines ruining every photograph.
For the Proudites, it’s three-stories or nothing.
FRANKLY SPEAKING, I THINK WE DESERVE MORE THAN
NOTHING
If the Proudites were to win at the OMB, nothing is what
we’d get. The Proudites are not concerned whether or
not the developers make a profit from their venture. But,
like any business person would understand, making a profit
is paramount when investing one’s business assets. And
when that amount is in the range of 80 million dollars, the
public and city councillors should be concerned that the endeavour
is a success.
The Proudites act as if this is public land and public money
being invested. May I remind our readers once again that this
is private property and private money being risked. Yes, the
proposal required an amendment to the zoning and the Official
Plan—both of which were GRANTED by the PREVIOUS CITY
AND REGIONAL COUNCILS.
And, though the Proudites state in their newsletter “…yet
the developer chooses to proceed to the OMB,” it is
the Proudites themselves who are taking the issue to the OMB
by appealing the two councils’ decisions.
TAXPAYER’S DOLLARS AT RISK
The Proudites are also trying to raise money from the public
in order to finance their appeal. Of course they would be
quite happy if the taxpayer paid for their venture—and
this is where the manipulation comes in.
People who followed the marathon public meetings of July 2006
might recall how Councillor Bruce Williamson worked hand in
glove with the Proudites, lobbing softball questions their
way to allow their speeches to expand well beyond the allotted
ten minute time limit in order for them to elaborate upon
their point of view. This was also an orchestrated attempt
to extend the public meetings for as long as possible in order
to wear out council before those supporting the project could
have an opportunity to speak. They were successful in stretching
the meetings into five days but not in winning over council
who voted IN FAVOUR of granting the zoning amendment. The
‘filibuster’ was just one action of many to try
to manipulate the public process.
The latest was played out on August 27th of this year in
front of a new council with Councillor Williamson again at
the helm. Council has 90 days to debate and comment on the
newly submitted site plan and heritage application. Normally,
council would ask for planning staff to make a recommendation
on any project, so it would only make sense that they would
ask for a professional opinion from their Planner on an $80
million project. But they didn’t.
Williamson’s motion, for the applications to be passed
through to council relying solely on the reports from the
city’s heritage advisory committees, passed. City Planner,
Paul Chapman stated he would make a recommendation if directed
to do so by Council but that what was before council was “deemed
to be the best approach.” Deemed? By Whom?
Councillor Len Stack moved that the Planner make a recommendation
to which Williamson countered “there’s no point
in a report from the Planner since his position (in favour)
is well documented. The motion was lost.
SO WHO WILL THE CITY BE RELYING ON FOR ADVICE?
For one, the Port Dalhousie Heritage District Advisory Committee
(PDHAC). And who is PDHAC? Eight out of ten members (the vast
majority) are Proudites. But not just ordinary Proudites—it’s
primarily the PROUD executive: Garcia, Bergen, Kehler, Cordner,
Connolly, McMullen, Alder and Webb. (Bergen & Kehler and
Alder & Webb are spouses and the rest are friends and
neighbours—not a cross-section of the community)
PDHAC is PROUD!
So why are some people so intent on limiting advice to council
to the Proudites? It’s because PDHAC will reject the
application. Then, it can be stated: “based on the information
we have before us from our advisory committee, council has
no choice but to reject these applications.”
AND THIS IS WHERE THE TAXPAYER PAYS PROUD’S
BILL
If council rejects the application, without being advised
to do so by their Planner, they cannot call upon his expert
testimony to support their decision at the OMB. (Nor would
they if he recommended they approve the application.) However,
if they elect to produce expert witnesses at the OMB to back
up their decision, and since no one on PDHAC is an expert
in planning or heritage conservation, the city would need
to hire outside lawyers and planners to fight the developers
at the OMB and…VOILA! The taxpayer is now paying for
PROUD’s appeal.
GEEZ, THEY’RE CLEVER
You really have to give them credit for their cunning, their
tenacity and their ability to openly make misleading statements
without blushing. Analyzing the Proudite mindset would be
a complicated task since individuals are drawn to the cause
for various reasons. For instance, senior citizens are generally
more resistive to change and don’t want their golden
years to be a time of adjustment preceded by two years of
construction. Those of moderate means may fear that sophistication
of the core area might price them out of existence. Then there
are those immersed in the culture of opposition and protest,
and others who just want to be part of a group or make new
friends. OR a Proudite may be someone building a campaign
platform and name recognition for the purpose of running in
the municipal election. Today they act like spoiled children
who are insistent upon getting their own way—or fundamentalists
who will not let logic or planning principles interfere with
their beliefs. Or—they just want to win.
Regardless of motive, the Proudites have become a formidable
force in the community. It’s not that they have numbers
or even popular support—it’s because they work
hard at presenting an image of popular support. And this is
what they are really good at—misleading the public.
If one repeats a lie often enough it will begin to sound like
the truth and, ultimately, alter public opinion. And the Proudites
know that most of our municipal politicians react to public
opinion.
THE FORMULA IS A SIMPLE ONE--Manipulate public
opinion and win the councillors’ vote.
However, when the facts are such that they cannot be used
to win over public opinion, the ‘facts’ need to
be skewed. This is why you never hear the Proudites saying
anything positive about the Port Place project. Their sole
intent is to create a negative impression in the public mindset.
And how do they do that? By manipulating the media. The media
controls public opinion and public opinion controls our elected
officials.
WHEN GOOD PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS
Good people can do bad things. Often they start out with
good intentions. PROUD began as a small group of residents
in Old Port Dalhousie who thought that their neighbourhood
should be recognized as a heritage district. 38% of the residents
agreed and the heritage district came into being on December
12, 2003. Following that, the group decided not to disband
but remain together for other purposes. Number one on the
agenda was to tackle the late-night bar patron problem, but
that was soon eclipsed when Port Dalhousie Vitalization Corporation
unveiled their plans for a 27-storey condo tower in the commercial
core (in spite of the fact that the project would solve the
bar problem).
The group split and those opposing the project (including
co-chairs Garcia and Bergen) hijacked PROUD by excluding those
open-minded to the project from receiving communications or
being informed of meetings. With a core group of about a half-dozen
people (carried over from the original group) the new group
attracted new members opposed to the development proposal.
PROUD became a protest group rather than a heritage group
but still waved the heritage banner. Then the misrepresentation
began along with the manipulation of the media and, as a result,
much of the public bought into the rhetoric. The misrepresentation
continues to this day.
WAKE UP!
After PDVC pulled the original proposal, in October 2004,
and prior to council’s vote on the new proposal in the
summer of 2006, the St. Catharines Standard editorialized
in support of the new proposal. Previously being criticized
for being biased toward PROUD in their reporting, The Standard’s
reporting became more balanced.
PROUD, displeased with one particular article, fired off a
letter to The Standard’s Managing Editor challenging
her to “…produce one example of where our organization
has not behaved in a civil and responsible manner.”
WE CAME UP WITH 33
The list has since grown to 37 and, though we wish we had
the room to print all, we have chosen to print, in chronological
order, 20 of the more serious breaches of “civil and
responsible” behaviour.
IF DEMOCRACY WAS A GAME, THIS WOULD BE CHEATING
1. July 2004. Manipulating the Public
PROUD distributes a survey throughout Port Dalhousie asking
for an opinion on the development without offering information
other than its own guiding principals. They then claim the
results show overwhelming opposition when, in truth, most
returned questionnaires requested more information. A Brock
professor questions the validity of the survey.
2. November 2004. Misleading the public with False
Statements in the Media
“The proposal calls for the destruction of most Heritage
Buildings owned by PDVC such as the Lions Tavern, Bank Building
and the Port Mansion.” (A statement on the saveport.ca
website)
“Why would residents want a development that will demolish
many of the current buildings and replace them with unsympathetic
new buildings?” (Carlos Garcia, PROUD Co-chair, letter
to the editor in Niagara This Week, Dec. 3/04)
“It includes tearing down most of the heritage buildings
they own.” (Carlos Garcia; Cogeco Nov. 20/04)
All of these statements are proven falsehoods.
3. November 2004. Door to door SOS Campaign Begins
Proud members go door-to-door in the Port Dalhousie Heritage
District inciting anti-tower hysteria by making misleading
statements to residents as previously noted. Rumours begin
to circulate that those supporting the development are being
bribed.
4. Winter 2005. Threatening Port Dalhousie Merchants
Port Dalhousie merchants report that members of PROUD have
approached them to display their anti-tower SOS poster and
some have been threatened with non-support of their business
if they don’t cooperate.
5. February 2005. Misleading the Public
PROUD’s newsletter and website carry inflammatory rhetoric
and false claims of “demolition of several 19th century
properties”, “reduced access to Lakeside Park
and the beach” and “the addition of 60,000 square
feet of retail.” Newsletters include drawings and photographs
depicting a sea of high rise towers, parking and traffic congestion
and other negative aspects of “what Port Dalhousie will
become” as a tactic to incite opposition.
6. April 2005. Silencing the Press
The co-chair of PROUD’s Community Relations Committee
calls the manager of the City’s Recreation and Community
Services Department to insist they stop advertising with Dalhousie
Peer Magazine (which had begun exposing PROUD’s tactics)
claiming the magazine was promoting the growing of marijuana—an
unfounded claim refuted by the RCS manager.
7. May 2005. Misleading the Public
Proud erects a billboard displaying the developer’s
concept drawing, altered, to induce a negative reaction.
8. Summer 2005. Misusing Public Property
PROUD raises funds to fight the developers by selling the
original street signs (replaced with heritage signs) even
though the new heritage signs were purchased with donations
from the developers and supporters of the development including
the Port Dalhousie Business Association.
9. June 28, 2005. PROUD Hijacks Public Information
Meeting to Deny Freedom of Speech
PROUD stages a media campaign to incite opposition to the
proposed development at the public information meeting selling
buttons and t-shirts with anti-tower slogans. Twenty or so
members line up to dominate the microphones before the brief
presentation by the city is concluded. PROUD supporters applaud
loudly after each of their speakers makes a presentation.
When the heritage architect attempts to answer a question
he is booed and heckled. When people in support of the development
finally get a chance to speak they are intimidated with heckling.
10. Summer 2005. Co-opting Heritage Agencies and
Persons
PROUD sends out information to Heritage Agencies such as the
Heritage Canada Foundation and the Architectural Conservancy
of Ontario and to individuals such as Lincoln Alexander and
Urban Philosopher Jane Jacobs. They use the replies to those
letters as support for their cause but when Councillor Erskine
asks to see a copy of what they sent, she is told that they
didn’t keep a copy of the letter.
11. September 2005. Demonizing the Developers
Following innuendo that the developers are paying off the
mayor, councillors and members of a citizens group, and having
attributed all sorts of negative adjectives such as “greedy”
to them in their writings, PROUD erects a billboard demonizing
the developers as a huge monster stomping over and destroying
Port Dalhousie.
12. October 2005. Manipulating Public Opinion
After six months of campaigning across the city with billboards,
letters to the editor, a newsletter and radio segments emphasizing
the negative aspects of a “Tower in Port Dalhousie”
while ignoring all positive aspects, PROUD conducts a private
phone survey to determine if their message is being received.
Assured by the results, they hire Brock students to conduct
a survey for which Co-chair Bergen has designed both the methodology
and the single question which relates solely to the tower
and provides no information on the project. When the results
come in showing 77% opposed to the tower, they claim that
the survey was designed and supervised by Brock Professor,
Herb MacKenzie, who later states he first heard about the
survey when he read the results in the paper.
13. Spring 2006. Questionable Use of Donations for
Heritage Signage
What has PROUD done with the $2500 left over from donations
for heritage signs? What is meant by the handwritten notes
on a PROUD ledger sheet: “Per Carlos: $2500 transferred
@ Jan1/05 = Donations re: Heritage Signs...Adjust memberships
to equal actual # members and apply to donations...Approx
500 members @ Dec. 31/05 = $2500,” ?
14. March 2006. Attempting to Politicize Port Dalhousie
Community Policing Committee
PROUD members sign up to fill the vacancies on the executive
of the Port Dalhousie Community Policing Committee in an attempt
to politicize it in support of PROUD. They later abandon their
positions and the NRP dissolves the committee.
15. April 2006. Bargaining in Bad Faith and Libellous
Activities
After NCSD chair, Dave Roberts, comes to an agreement with
Garcia and Bergen to maintain an open dialogue on issues rather
than taking things public, Garcia releases a bogus email (designed
to cast NCSD in a bad light) to the media and all elected
officials and senior staff in the Region.
16. May 2006. Misrepresenting the Facts
PROUD begins its campaign against the new “Kirkland”
proposal by misrepresenting the facts in their newsletter
and on their website. Their website still retains much of
the information that pertains solely to the original design
and, at first glance, a reader would believe this outdated
information, which refers to a 30-storey tower, is current.
Their website and newsletter also portray a future for Port
that shows an impossible number of high-rise buildings.
17. June 13, 14, 15, 2006. Denying Freedom of Speech
At the public Council meetings, scheduled to hear from opponents
and proponents of the proposed development, PROUD organizes
a filibuster designed to wear out council and frustrate the
proponents in their bid to be heard. PROUD parades a series
of speakers before council for three nights to deny the opportunity
for the proponents to be properly heard by dominating the
time and forcing constant rescheduling of more evenings while
council members grow weary of hearing from the public.
18. August 2006. Operating behind a Charitable Organization
and Denying Membership
PROUD members establish the St. Catharines Branch of the Architectural
Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) in order to raise funds for their
cause under the ACO banner. Membership is denied to Port residents
with heritage pedigrees who disagree with PROUD’s point
of view.
19. November 2006. Manipulating Voters
After threatening councillors, should they support the project,
PROUD distributes ballots marked solely with candidates who
oppose the project. Rather than encouraging voters to think
and analyze for themselves, they dictate to the electorate.
20. Current. Misrepresentation of Fundraising Recipient
PROUD now fundraises under the banner of ACO to deceive people
into thinking they are donating toward the preservation of
heritage buildings when in fact money is being raised to fight
the developers who actually are preserving and restoring heritage
buildings.
PROUD = PDHDAC = ACO
IT’S ALL THE SAME PEOPLE
It’s a small group of people but they have a way of
making themselves seem larger. They wear whatever hat suits
the occasion but, lately, it seems the PROUD hat has worn
thin. No worry to them. The PDHAC hat is what they wear in
front of council and now it’s the ACO hat they wear
in front of the public.
The St. Catharines ACO Branch, which was started by PROUD,
is now raising funds to stop the proposed development in Port
Dalhousie and, unless our city council puts taxpayers on the
hook, PROUD will be using these funds to pay for their lawyers
and expert witnesses.
The fundraising initiative under ACO is deceiving. Promotion
for an “ACO” fun-run states “The local Branch’s
current focus is on raising funds to help preserve and enhance
the heritage of historic Port Dalhousie’s provincially-designated
Heritage District.”
Nowhere does it state specifically how it intends to preserve
and enhance the heritage. So let’s look at what the
ACO (AKA PROUD) has done since the original PROUD splintered
following the designation of the heritage district.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
PROUD (or ACO) has not contributed to the conservation of
any building in the district or elsewhere. The money they
raise won’t go to heritage restoration but toward trying
to defeat a proposal that calls for the rehabilitation and
conservation of all aspects of heritage (including fragments
of walls) within the project boundaries.
What will happen if PROUD wins its appeal? It’s hard
to predict and PDVC isn’t even entertaining that notion
but, for the sake of conjecture, most likely the status quo
would prevail. PDVC has already gone on record saying they
would not build a low rise development as suggested by PROUD.
The reasoning is that it would not be a profitable venture.
When Architect, Michael Kirkland came on board to redesign
the project, he met several times with PROUD members and ultimately
came away stating to Co-chair Garcia at a public meeting,
“The only things that you’ve suggested to me are
things that would critically maim the project.”
Losing to PROUD at the OMB could possibly cause PDVC to sell
off their properties piecemeal rather than risk their capital
to fund a doomed venture within the realm of PROUD’s
standards.
Would there be a buyer in the wings with a plan that won’t
exceed three stories? Would a project like the one pictured
above serve us better than the one now on the table that includes
a public courtyard, a theatre and conservation of all heritage
buildings? As it now stands, it will not be a majority of
Council but the OMB who will answer that question. ¤
|
