WHAT WE’VE LEARNED

One might think that, after five years of debate, a 17-week OMB hearing and final acceptance by this city council (after having been approved by the previous council) the contest would be over. Unfortunately, for some it is not. There are still holdouts who want to stand in the way of the success of Port Place and who do not want to see the community united in acceptance let alone in support.

On the Niagara At Large website I commented: “There comes a time when one has to accept decisions arrived at through public debate and an impartial legal process. To do otherwise would mean that we would never move forward as a united community.”

This generated a response from a Port Dalhousie resident. “Screw moving forward as ‘a united community’,” she posted. What is most troubling is that this person is also the Secretary of PROUD and a member of the Port Dalhousie heritage advisory committee.

We also have to question the ethics behind a local resident and OMB appellant who publicized the fact that the developer had not (as of then) paid its taxes on their Port Dalhousie properties. City staff acknowledged that it was common practice for businesses to allocate money to areas of greater return than taxes, that the city was benefitting from a high interest rate on what was essentially a secured loan, and that taxes were also overdue on over 1500 other properties in the city. It can only be assumed that there was a malicious intent behind the action, one that sought to scare away potential condo buyers. And, as we all know, less demand means reduced price, which alludes to a secondary motive beyond vengeance.

Vengeance may be human nature but even children learn that it is not a positive aspect. The Star Wars epic “Return of the Jedi” was originally to be titled “Revenge of the Jedi” until a child pointed out to George Lucas that vengeance was a bad thing. Perhaps we should be looking to the younger generation of our community for moral and ethical advisement since they will inherit what we bestow them. And we don’t want to hand them a community where animosity prevails.

AIM HIGH

Let’s concentrate on some positive aspects. The 2015 Pan Am games are coming to Port Dalhousie in the form of rowing competitions. That may seem a long way off but it’s closer than we think. Remember, the Port Dalhousie development was first announced in 2003. The developer and the city have only just now signed off on all issues to allow work to proceed (site plan, heritage easement, cost sharing and parking agreements). Work should start this fall and completion would be in 2012. By 2015 it will offer an inviting and interesting venue to receive our international guests. It will also provide jobs, tax revenue, permanent and overnight accommodation as well as a variety of retail and entertainment experiences for both residents and visitors. It may even set a precedent for the type of development that can revitalize nodes along the entire Welland Canals corridor, which is getting closer to receiving National Historic Site recognition.

Port Dalhousie, St. Catharines and the whole of Niagara are now poised on the threshold of change—a change that can provide us and future generations with a higher quality of life. To move forward toward a brighter future we not only have to create a climate for investment but we also have to knock down the barriers that inhibit change.

THE OFFICIAL PLAN

St. Catharines is in the process of rewriting its Official Plan (OP). This is the document that asks what we want to be twenty years from now and establishes guidelines to get us to that point. If we want to be exactly like we are right now, in other words no change, then the OP can be written restrictively. If we want to throw caution to the wind and let the whims of economics, demographics and profit control our growth, then we could abolish all rules. Somewhere in between lies the greater good.

There is much to guide us in the form of Provincial policy and contemporary planning ethics. Generating tax revenue is important, but it’s not the sole consideration. A climate that will return fair profit margins to investors is also a factor but not a controlling one. So is heritage conservation. No one aspect should outweigh the other, which is why it is important to look at all aspects and arrive at a balance.

We might look at the OP in the same way that we look at the Port Dalhousie heritage guidelines. They are similar, but not the same. The public has input on both but the OP is mandated for review every five years. This ensures that it is always current in reflecting a changing community, unexpected economic conditions and new Provincial policies.
The heritage guidelines that were set for the three heritage districts in St. Catharines reflected the wishes of the residents at that time. Review would be subject to the desires of the current residents or city council and would require at least one public meeting.

In the case of the Port Dalhousie heritage district, the residents called for “guidelines that were not overly restrictive” and that statement was recorded in both the OMB hearing that approved the district and the hearing that approved Port Place. To change the guidelines now would require a public meeting; and, unless the sentiment of the community has changed dramatically, would not invoke more restrictive guidelines. In fact, pursuant to the way the heritage guidelines were invoked in an attempt to derail the Port Place development (as pointed out in the OMB decision) the community may very well now ask for even less restrictive guidelines.

One appellant at the heritage district OMB hearing stated that he feared guidelines would be toughened up once the approval was granted. In a sense, he was right. The ‘interpretation’ of the guidelines was proffered for more restrictiveness. If it wasn’t for the threat of a public meeting, the local heritage committee would certainly be attempting to add more restrictiveness to the guidelines in much the same way they are attempting to rewrite the OP draft.

PROUD members dominate the heritage advisory committee (9 out of 11) and are using this council appointed committee to further their agenda.

The OP draft states: “The City shall encourage the intensification and adaptive reuse of heritage properties. Any permitted redevelopment shall ensure, where possible, that the original building fabric and architectural features are retained and that any new additions will complement the existing building.”

PROUD, visa vie the heritage committee, is asking that the words ‘where possible’ be removed and that ‘and restored’ be added after ‘retained. The original clause makes it clear what the intent should be and offers some latitude, but the amendment could handcuff an investor and force him to walk away from something that is unprofitable. Ironically, the result could be that the building does not receive rehabilitation and is lost through the ravages of time. Hence, the need for balance.

DREAM BIG

We can dream big when it comes to heritage preservation and restoration. Regional Councillor Timms has had success with his dreams of the now completed Greater Niagara Circle Route and the pending designation of the Welland Canals Corridor as a National Historic Site. (see pg. 12)

Heritage does not have to be sacrificed for development but can be enhanced by it. Likewise, heritage should not pose an impediment to development but act as a catalyst.

What we need on our councils are elected officials who understand that and who are willing to look for the balance rather than satisfying the wishes of any particular lobby group.

Now, with the election only months away, it is time to start scrutinizing the candidates. Current city councillors can be assessed on how they vote on the Official Plan. Will they accept staff’s recommendations or amend it to suit the wishes of a lobby group? We should know by early summer and the Peer may report on it in October.

Bye for now. Thanks for listening. ¤