2016-12-06 Parry Sound Council Meeting Reflections
07 Wednesday Dec 2016
Written by parry034 in Parry Sound, Reflections, Urban Development
Well, last night meeting of Parry Sound Council was about as interesting a session as I have experienced in the past five years. The only exception might be last year’s fluoride sessions. Watching the crowd milling around the hall before the meeting it was jokingly asked if fluoride was on the agenda. The meeting met expectations in terms of entertainment value. It’s worth reviewing a few of the ‘acts’.
Belvedere Parking
There was a deputation by Donna Dellio, Chief Executive Officer Belvedere Heights (‘Belvedere’) concerning the issue of parking on Belvedere Avenue. Ms. Dellio’s deputation was in support of the existing traffic pattern to ensure there were adequate parking spots available for the public, staff and suppliers. I took exception to her deputation on two points that I believe are either incorrect or inappropriate.
- She claimed that the parking lot at Belvedere was consistently full, and she related that at on one occasion she was required to park down closer to the downtown. Well I call Bull Shitake on that. I have been up to Belvedere multiple times, at all times of day, all days of the week, and have yet to see the pay parking lot across the street full. On most occasions there are no more than one or two cars in the pay lot. Now, the lot beside the Belvedere building is almost always full. This is reserved parking for either residents or staff, I’m not sure. And of course, there have been times I have headed up to Belvedere to visit and have found the ‘free’ on street parking is full, but at the same time the parking lot is almost totally empty. There is more than enough parking up on Belvedere to meet the current needs, without on street parking, but it costs $2. We know how Parry Sounders, visitors and staff, hate to pay for parking. The deputation seems misleading with respect to a need for on street parking. There is enough parking, but it’s not free. Take down the parking arms and the problem is solved. But there is that parking lot to be paid for, $2 at a time. Oh dear, that’s a problem isn’t it?
- As part of the deputation Ms. Dellio suggested that part of the parking problem was that because of heritage considerations the pay parking lot was restricted to 19 spots, not the 32 that they originally requested. I am outraged. So, they took perhaps the most iconic outlook in Parry Sound, paved it, put up a pay parking lot, and then resent the fact that they were not allowed to pave even more? Shame on Ms. Dellio for blaming the locals for trying to trying to preserve a bit of what makes Parry Sound special. That’s another example of why we can’t have nice things in Parry Sound.
Whether or not there is a need for one or two-way access on Belvedere Avenue is immaterial to me. But let’s not be loose with the facts to support a particular position.
Closed Session Discussions and Decisions
There was an interesting by-law approved last night that flew right over the head of anyone at the meeting. After the RBC move was discussed and voted on, Council moved to the regular session. One of the first actions of Council was to vote upon a by-law that had been discussed and agreed in closed session. It presumably concerned the agenda item:
c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land for municipal or local board purposes. (Property Purchases)
There was no discussion or explanation of the by-law during the meeting. It was simply brought forward and voted upon. After the meeting I spoke with the Clerk and asked to see the by-law. The by-law was an offer to purchase a property in the boundaries of Parry Sound from a government agency (I don’t recall the details). Turning to a couple of the Councillors after the meeting I asked what it concerned and why there was no discussion or explanation of the by-law before or after it was approved. They seemed a little hesitant to offer any details until I indicated it was approved as by-law so it was in fact public. They offered the barest of details, but enough to sniff what’s going on. I have in the past requested that Council be fully transparent with respect to items that are ‘agreed’ in closed sessions and simply brought forward to open session without any opportunity for the public to offer input, much less understand what’s going on.
There is something going on that also has an impact on the 2017 Parry Sound Budget. I have a sense of what it is and I’m surprised the Town hasn’t provided more information to the public. Perhaps it’s supposed to be a SURPRISE. I’m not sure how you feel about surprises, but I’m not a big fan of them when it comes to things that may impact my pocket book, in the near or long term.
I’ll see if the Town offers more information in the next week or so, either through a press release or an ‘interview’ with one of the official media outlets, before I offer what I’ve managed to discover. There is no conspiracy here, just a seeming desire of Staff and Council to get things done out of the view of the public. It surprising how many people think it’s easier to get things done in the dark. Well actually it’s about keeping others in the dark. That’s why we have Sunshine requirements.
Royal Bank of Canada Move
This was the big item on the agenda. The bank wants to move from their current location at the Mall to the Oastler Park Shoping Plaza (Walmart plaza). Any move would require approval by Council, an amendment to the Town’s Official Plan, and approval of the amendment by the Province. There was quite a bit of confusion and drama surrounding the decision that I won’t go into, I’ll leave it to the ‘official’ media to cover it. It’s the kind of news that captures online clicks. The bottom line is that no final decision was made and it will be back on the December 20th agenda. But I will make a few comments.
- I have written in the past that ‘I don’t have a dog in the fight’. That doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion. In this case I support the status quo in terms of what the Town’s Official Plan states with respect to the location of banks. If there is an interest in allowing the free location of banks then let’s have a discussion of the issue and as appropriate change the Official Plan. Why have plans if they can be thrown out at the seemingly arbitrary whim of certain Councillors. It would seem to me that if the Official Plan were to be disregarded it should require a unanimous approval by Council, not a split vote, or one decided by the Mayor.
- We seem to have a a Trumpkin on Council. I’m referring to Councillor Saulnier. In general, I do not call out council members by name, but it’s appropriate here in my opinion. The Trumpkin approach in my opinion is to ignore facts and protocol/procedures. At last night’s meeting Councillor Saulnier, who was in support of amending the Official Plan and allowing the move, made the claim that the Town isn’t growing so we should do something different. This implied ignoring the Official Plan’s long standing rule that banks, bars and alcohol retailers be located in the downtown. Well actually Councillor Trumpkin, Parry Sound is growing. The last census (2011) found that the Town of Parry Sound had grown by 6.4% while McDougall was flat and Seguin was down by 6.7%. Compared to a few decades ago the population hasn’t changed much, but after a precipitous drop in population it seems that growth is back. Detroit would be delighted to see its population return to what it was three decades ago. And let’s remember that Parry Sound has little developable land, and what land we may have, notably Louisa Street, has been designated as a low priority because of the expected cost of infrastructure. The willingness to toss out plan and protocol, in this case the Official Plan, is so Trump-like. Parry Sound is not in a crisis situation where it is appropriate to encourage a free-for-all. Shooting from the hip is a valid approach, but be sure not to shoot yourself in the foot. It’s ready, aim, fire not, ready, fire, aim.
- The RBC wants to move right now. But won’t that take a change to the Official Plan, and don’t changes to the Official Plan need to be approved by the Province? I’m not up on municipal process and procedure but that presumably would take some time, probably several months. Does that fit with the apparent urgency to revise the Official Plan? Perhaps the Town can provide some clarity on the timelines to Council and Public.
- In case you are wondering who voted for and against the move, here’s a summary. For the move: McGarvey, Saulnier, Marshall. Against the move: Keith, McCann, Borneman. Absent: Horne. If you have an opinion I suggest you contact one of the councillors to express your thoughts on how they should vote to represent your interests.
Woo-hoo the best free* show it town. Let’s see if there is a plan to set up reserved seating for the December 20th meeting. I’ll be there.
Closed Sessions. Can North Shore Rugged Trail Users Expect a SURPRISE?
- Actually nothing is free. Consider it part of the bonus you get for paying taxes, sort of like your one free dump day tag. (Conditions apply)
No comments
December 7, 2016 at 2:19 pm
Thanks for the information Jo.
I can’t understand why the Official Pan would state that “Banks” must be located in a certain area of Town n the first? What the initial reasoning would be for that ‘odd’ inclusion is beyond me. Bars? I can see the reasoning there OK.
December 7, 2016 at 2:39 pm
I suspect that experience in municipal economics has found that banks act as ‘anchor’ institutions in a community, much as a Bay or an Eaton’s store was an ‘anchor’ in a shopping complex. These institutions/businesses deliver customer traffic to the downtown or shopping mall. It may be that these ‘best practices’ are no longer valid or necessary. If that is the case then the Official Plan perhaps needs to be revisited as part of a review and revision process, not willfully ignored.
Speaking to a concerned resident they wondered why there would be a need for the Downtown Revitalization Group if the Official Plan is no longer being respected. You can’t make plans if there are no consistent rules.
Businesses require consistency. They need to know that if they make an investment this year that it will deliver the expected returns for the foreseeable future and not be sidetracked because of an arbitrary change in regulations.
December 7, 2016 at 3:56 pm
Jo, I attended the meeting last night as I attend many town meetings in towns where we have a vested interest. It never ceases to amaze me that council members still consider the opinion of so-called “experts”, being the planners hired by developers/landlords as somehow unbiased.
140 years ago, Sir George Jessel said of experts “Undoubtedly there is a natural bias to do something serviceable for those who employ you and adequately remunerate you.”
And Learned Hand wrote at the turn of the 20th Century:
“The serious objections are, first, that the expert becomes a hired champion of one side . . . . Enough has been said elsewhere as to the natural bias of one called in such matters to represent a single side and liberally paid to defend it.”
I do have a bias, as most of us do, the difference is that most of us do not try to distort this bias into fact.
For a look at what downtown Parry Sound may look like in 20 years……
http://www.simcoereformer.ca/2015/08/20/vacant-storefronts-alarm-councillor
My concern is that we are planning to build additional residential units on the Mall site in the future and would like to use the fact that Parry Sound has a vibrant downtown as a selling feature. Residents generally like to go for a walk downtown, not so much in a Walmart parking lot.
Aurelio Baglione,
President
Parry Sound Mall Inc.
December 7, 2016 at 4:18 pm
Thanks for the comments and the link.
Everyone is in support of the rule of law, unless it is against their own interests. The argument for the free market controlling everything is credible, and perhaps even desirable. That might mean we not only get rid of any official plans, but we also remove a requirement for unions, eliminate any zoning laws that are not strictly based on safety issues (yes perhaps your neighbour could start raising sheep next door), sign laws disappear, beer and booze can be sold anywhere and everywhere, and ….. Does this seem like the kind of community where you would buy a house? Regulation can be onerous, so let’s be careful with too much and too little.
Let’s see what our elected officials decide, they do live in Parry Sound and will share in the consequences of their decision.
December 8, 2016 at 9:50 am
I’d suggest that the “trumpkin” trope is a bad idea.
I agree with your assessment of the substance, I just think that method of calling it out is a bad idea.
Remember, trump did inspire the support of half of the voters. So for roughly half of people, calling someone a “trumpkin” will seem like a compliment, and only give them more reason to support him. They’ll say something like “well, trumpkin you say? Then he’s my man!”
The other half of people will applaud you, of course, and think it’s clever, but those people likely already would have agreed with you, so you’re just preaching to the choir.
It’s the other half you need to persuade, but by giving them a trump flag to rally around, you just drive them further in the opposite direction.
In other words: no one will be shamed into changing their mind because you associated them with trump.
All that leaves you with then is an ineffective ad hominem.
If people aren’t through such labels told in advance which position is the one that’s supposed to be held by “their side”, then they might actually have to consider the issue based on its substance.
We can dream, anyway.
December 8, 2016 at 10:17 am
My blog, I get to have a little bit of fun. I sit through multiple meetings of Council where I am the only person not paid to be there. Consider this my little bit of ‘compensation’ for hanging in there. I’m not running for office, or looking for popularity.
It’s one thing to point something out, and another to make it memorable. In this case it needed to be pointed out because it’s a recurring issue. The official media certainly won’t go there. As we learned from the US presidential campaign a good ‘hook’ gets more attention, and votes, than good policy, at least in a majority of states.
It has been demonstrated that no amount of logical arguments and facts will sway those who hold an opposing position. Sometimes people will be moved by a more visceral approach.