By Pepper Parr
July 28, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
They aren’t going to give up
There is something to be said about a city that has these small pockets of people who just don’t know how to give up. More than a year ago city council decided that despite the objections of more than a 300 people and against the staff recommendation they had in front of them, council decided they would sell a small stretch of waterfront land to an adjacent property owners.
This is the view that will be lost to the public forever should the center property be sold. One wonders if the city would allow the property to be fenced off? Probably
The first due date for the valuation of the property May 2014 but that had to be extended with no specific return date. The property in question is owned by both the city and the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources and they were apparently having both second thoughts as to whether or not the property should even be sold and the possible price as well.
The view to the east from the foot of St.Paul Street. This would become one of the “windows on the lake”
In their complaint the BWC argued that a “decision by Burlington City Council that is inconsistent with approved City policy and contrary to a staff report on the topic of the Water Street walkway/parkette.
There are three parcels of land. The city currently owns the ones on the left and the right. The parcel in the centre is owned by the province and the city. The city said it would create “windows on the lake” with “minimal” amenities on the left and the right and sell the property in the centre to adjacent property owners. Deal hasn’t been done yet.
Getting their complaint made turned out to be easier said than done. The Burlington Waterfront Committee first took their complaint to the provincial Ombudsman. Bureaucracies being what they are it took some time to get paper back and forth only to learn that people in Burlington do not get to take their complaints to the Ombudsman – they have to deal with Local Authority Services (LAS) which is a wholly owned subsidiary company of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
In order to get your complaint before LAS one needs to lay all their cards in front of the city clerk who then normally asks for a fee of $100. That fee was waived for the Burlington Waterfront Committee.
The complaint is now in the hands of an independent investigator.
The issue has to do with an unopened road allowance known as Water Street that lies between Market St. and St. Paul St. in downtown Burlington. At one point Water Street, which no longer exists, was the main road along the lake’s edge.
Back when the city had an official waterfront advisory committee they looked into upgrading, improving and adding to the collection of Windows on the Lake. These are very small parcels of land the city owns that are at the edge of the lake and serve as places where people can sit on a bench an just enjoy the view.
When the Waterfront Advisory Committee was brought to an end the “unofficial” Burlington Waterfront Committee was formed and they have got their teeth into ensuring that the old Water Street land just doesn’t disappear into the hands of private people.
The BWC argues that if the City concludes the sale of this property, the public will lose this waterfront asset forever. At the October 2013 Committee meeting which was held in closed session, the Councillors directed staff to negotiate the sale and report back in six months despite delegations from citizens and from the Burlington Waterfront Committee (BWC) and a staff report that recommended retaining and using the land for public use. In May 2014 City Councillors extended the negotiation period with no end date. The BWC attempted to present its case again that the sale was contrary to City Policy, however the BWC delegation was ruled out of order as the specific issue on the agenda was limited to the status of negotiations.
Citizens get suspect when dates for decisions get pushed back with no real date set. Files like that tend to get lost which is what got this whole matter before the public.
A group of citizens proposed a pathway through the properties – it never got off the ground. But when the idea was put forward – it wasn’t an election year.
Burlington was the lead city in what is now known as the Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail that starts at Lake Erie and runs along the edge of Lake Ontario all the way to the Quebec border.
While the piece of land between Market and St. Paul streets is very small – it is an important part of the trail that former Toronto Mayor David Crombie created.
Like the famed Bruce Trail – these things start out as an idea and they grow. It takes council members with vision and a true understanding of what their city is about to ensure that its heritage is maintained and grown. Vision has always been a problem for this council.
Background links:
It started with the old Waterfront Advisory Committee
Waterfront Advisory died and so did the idea for more Windows on the Lake.
Private interests made their move to buy the land.
Selling the family jewels Part 1
Selling the family jewels Part 2
How the city decided to sell it.
I agree with “resident” the land should be kept City ownership as a public right of way.
It’s disheartening that the attempt of a group of Burlington citizens to bring greater transparency to our political process should come under such a venomous attack. I strongly suspect, Mr. Lipschitz, that your normal contribution to the public rarely extends beyond the occasional nasty comment in the Toronto Sun! Alternatively, do you have a personal interest in the properties in question? That would explain a great deal.
I agree with JQ Public.
Publicly owned land is every citizen’s business. Maybe a referendum is needed?
So Mr. Lipschitz, by seeking to simply retain, not buy or confiscate, land already owned by the public, the waterfront committee is somehow violating “the rights of private citizens”? That’s a novel charge in a democratic capitalist society. Seems to me the “private citizens” might just be trying to violate the rights of the public.
I agree. We the public are losing a valuable right if the city sells to only three citizens. This land should be kept city ownership as a public right of way.
It is becoming nauseating to see the continuance of a committee with no status sticking its self righteous arrogance over the rights of private citizens under the cloak of some sort of protection for the collective. “Condos encircling the lake” – what condos? and Burlington only fronts onto a portion of the northern shoreline of lake ontario; please stop the hysterics over a story that is over. There is no further story to be told here.
The waterfront committee is a simple group of mischievous people. Meed Ward has only one vote, but, seems to stubbornly attach herself through this group of wackos to prove what?
If city hall nurtures the existence of such groups, then I may start my own committee; it will be called the anti-committee committee.
Randy, I would be interested to know how you feel the sale of these properties will benefit the City? I believe that is the question most people will be asking. I presume that you think the revenues that the City would realize must be substantial, and therefore a net benefit to all Burlingtonians. This discussion would have greater context in terms dollars and cents. Would you hazard a guess at what that number might be?
The Waterfront Committee is not recognized by City Council and Councilor Meed Ward is not the Council liaison. It appears the Waterfront Committee is Councilor Meed Ward’s political action committee. It is assisted through Councilor Meed Ward’s access to public resources such as free meeting space at City Hall and the services of her personal assistant, just to name a couple. I question if this is a misuse of public resources and flies in the face of Councilor Meed Ward’s ironic pleas for transparency in City governance.
Councilor Meed Ward’s sole opposition to the majority decision of Council (and this challenge by the Waterfront Committee, aka her political action committee) are simply further attempts to stir more headlines for a Councilor who consistently fails to get her agenda passed at City Hall.
A further reality regarding the Waterfront Committee is that despite its stated commitment to increase public waterfront access it has done nothing to improve the City’s sadly lacking state of the existing “windows to the lake” or Port Nelson Park. (Although the latter has just recently received a major transformation largely due to the efforts of Councilor Dennison).
There is also an issue of transparency with BWC. In a letter to BWC dated June 24, 2014, I wrote… “based on your assertion of the open and truthful communication of Councilor Meed Ward there is a serious issue of misrepresentation. At the committee and council meetings regarding the Water St. parcel, members of the BWC have been very critical and accusatory of the Mayor and five Councilors who voted in favour of the sale for making a “hasty” decision. There have also been numerous references to this being pushed through in only six months without adequate public knowledge. The property owners first met with Councilor Meed Ward on July 17th 2012. At that time we asked her to share the information with the BWC, the public and City staff. This was fifteen months prior to Council voting on the sale. The reference to six months is not truthful and once again is very misleading in swaying public opinion against the sale. It also undermines the efforts and wisdom of the Mayor and the other Councilors.”
Editor’s note: Janice Connell is one of the property owners on Lakeshore Road who is expecting to purchase a portion of the land the city decided it would sell Ms Connell was a very strong advocate for the sale of the property.
Mr Lipschitz,
With all (un)due respect, I would agree with the other posts, it is not clear why the City needs to sell this land to secure any amount of money, which would only be a tiny drop in a large capital budget. To call the BWC a “terrorist” organization may be a bit of an overstatement. I am not a member of the group however they are actively taking up the agenda of the Burlington Waterfront because the lake, the shore and the immediately adjacent land has no one else to represent it as a collective. If we leave decisions to be made in an individualistic manor then we would see condos completely encircling the lake since this would generate the highest economic return.
We need someone to watch out for the collective. We don’t really need anonymous people launching pointless grenades.
IF I am incorrect and this is not a pseudonym, so that you don’t have to stand up for what you say, please let me know.
I hope Katherine is wrong because I would hate to see Marianne Meed Ward leave politics. I’m not in her ward, but IMO she is the best and by far the brightest person on the city council and I wish that we had 6 more with her fine qualities.
The Waterfront Committee is going take Meed Ward out of politics. She may very well wear the final outcome of this one, if the BWC organization is allowed to continue with its attacks.
What are they thinking??? Burlington’s major asset is our waterfront location. Giving it away piecemeal to profit a few wealthy landowners and developers makes no sense. Please stop this wasteful erosion!
This is a perfect example of what a bunch of left wing nuts can do to twist the facts on a story which has nothing to do with them. Council knows. Council made a reasoned and pragmatic decision which benefits the city as a whole.
The lone vote against the land deal decision was also made by a nut with selfish motivations supported by a relatively new local terrorist organization called the BWC.
Damn – my Bolshevik slip is showing.
Harsh words Randy. You leave lots of room for expansion of your thoughts. A commentor, some weeks ago under a moniker, shared similar assertions to yours. What is it that “Council knows” that we citizens seem unable to grasp? Sincerely, I would be interested in better understanding your position, your interest and your insight on this matter.
I think that the sale of City waterfront property will become a bigger election issue than most Councillors realize.
If it is decreed that the land will be sold, it should be offered on the open market to all bidders (with a minimum bid price) in an effort to maximize the monetary potential for the City. An open market policy would make private individuals think twice before engaging the City in land matters such as this. Similarly, it is the most transparent option for the City.
Having said this, I think the sale of this land is a very bad idea, and I would not vote for any Councillor who supports it.
If they do sell the land (against our wishes), then complete transparency on the fair market value of the land and what it was actually sold for (and to whom it was sold too), should be the only condition that the citizens of Burlington demand!!!
We have a policy of retaining and preserving waterfront property, but like. our zoning rules, council makes these strange decisions to modify them, usually to suit a rich suitor. Stick to the policy and keep this precious piece of lake shore, so all can enjoy it.
Council should show some good judgment and keep the land as city property. There is no downside to keeping it.
Re: Parkette I am greatly in favour of the city NOT selling the land and instead, following their own policy which is to retain the land for public use. I ofter ride my bicycle to the end of Markey or Paul Street to have a closer look at the lake while on the way past. This parkette possibility would make bike riders trips more enjoyable. My recommendation is to keep the land in city ownership and improve it with a paved trail.