By Pepper Parr
April 20, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
There are residents in the city who are not prepared to give up on decent looking windows on the lake; they don’t want to settle for something that is “minimalist” or a space that is neither comfortable nor inviting.
This is the view from the bottom of the St. Paul Street road allowance.
They are in the process of circulating a survey regarding the Windows to the Lake at the foot of Market, St. Paul and Green Streets. It will be shared with the Community & Corporate Services Committee of City Council on June 16, 6:30pm, at City Hall, when that committee reviews staff’s recommendations for windows to the lake development.
Some personal data is being collected to validate the accuracy of the data. It will not be shared with third parties; “I will destroy it after it’s used” said Brian Rose, one of the community group behind this initiative. He offered to “drop by and record your answer in person” reach him at – contact me @ bdarose@me.com if that is your pleasure.
You wouldn’t know it – but this is public property and anyone can walk out to the end and look over the lake. City will now put signage indicating that the land is public. Great views.
City Council gets presented with survey results often – they tend to treat the information as suspect: Councillor Dennison has in the past left the clear impression that he thinks the figures have been rigged.
This information is being collected by area residents who want to bring some objectivity to the discussion at city council. We have set out the questions BUT you have to go to the web site to enter your answers. You can only answer the survey questions one time.
The questions:
Are you aware you have access to public waterfront land at the base of Green Street, Market Street & St.Paul Street called Windows to the Lake?
Yes
No
The most important element of the Windows to the lake is
Open up the view by removing tree branches and undergrowth blocking the view
A place to sit and view the lake
Other (please specify)
Which of the following features do you consider to be important for a Window to the Lake?
Seating (Park bench)
Paved pathways (As required under AODA disability access legislation)
Security lighting
Waste bin
Bike Rack
Signage at road – Windows to the Lake Standard
Planter with plants it Shrubs
Other (please specify)
What kind of fencing would you like to see at the water’s edge?
None
3.5 foot Post with Chains (Like Port Nelson Park at the foot of Guelph line)
3.5 foot metal fencing (see through wrought iron)
Other (please specify)
Do you believe it’s important the public waterfront land is accessible to people with disabilities?
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
This is an architects rendering of what the Window on the Lake could look like – and there will be signage letting you know that you are welcome.
In addition to the already approved Windows to the lake at Market and St. Paul, designs were also presented to develop the neglected & overgrown window at the end of Green Street. please indicate what you support
Develop the window at Green Street as per presented plans – with input
Cleaning up the Window by removing brush, trees and pruning to open up the view?
Do nothing – I don’t like seeing the water
Bench, Sign & Simple Fence
Other (please specify)
I am a Burlington Resident Living in Ward
Ward 2
Ward 1
Ward 3
Ward 4
Ward 5
I am not a resident of Burlington
I am resident on one of the below streets In close proximity of the proposed windows.
Please provide your Name, Address & email this info is mandatory. (Only the first response from each residence will be used & the info will not be shared/sold etc)
Any other comments or feedback.
If you want to complete the survey – cut and paste the following link into your computer browser.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PWCFCVN
Please post this instead pressed send to early – pressed send by mistake
Please use this one instead
Didn’t this whole thing get started because of a lack of disclosure and public engagement well before any of the Citizens were mislead and misrepresented.
a) The process of selling the land was quietly done without the benefit of public engagement (in fact most local residents didnt even know the land was public prior to September 2013)
b) Somebody advised the details of the sale should be kept from the public. With nothing to hide
Everyone in the public and the homeowners are simply looking out for our own self interests. Maximizing their view of the lake and property values. The lack of disclosure is what turned this into a debate and aside from pricing, evaluation and negotiations everything should have been out on the table from day 1. If there were no facts to hide – they were hidden. If suspicions arose they were not met with explanations- because the details could not be released. The person(s) that owes the public and the homeowners an explanation is whoever advised the stakeholders not to engage the public and to cover the details in a veil of secrecy – even with nothing to hide. I think the victimization of the homeowners is a bit of a stretch they all seem like nice, smart people and everyone respects what they’ve accomplished and any ill feelings are simply blown out of proportion. I could be wrong but I do feel there may have been advice provided to minimize public disclosure as much as possible and it seems to me the source of that advice (if I’m correct?$ and not the councillor are to blame for this thing getting so messy.
It’s encouraging to see the city and councillors are committed to engaging the public earlier in the process the next time this kind of waterfront real estate transaction comes up. That’s a good thing!!
Pressed send by accident
Brian Rose
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 27, 2015 at 1:28 pm · Reply
Didn’t this whole thing get started because of a lack of disclosure and public engagement well before any of the Citizens were mislead and misrepresented.
a) The process of selling the land was quietly done without the benefit of public engagement (in fact most local residents didnt even know the land was public prior to September 2013)
b) Somebody advised the details of the sale should be kept from the public. Apparently with nothing to hide nothing but the valuation should have been kept secret.
Everyone in the public and the homeowners are simply looking out for our own self interests. Maximizing their view of the lake and property values or simply getting the city to cleanup and make the Windows to the lake accessible. The lack of disclosure is what turned this into a debate and aside from pricing, evaluation and negotiations everything should have been out on the table from day 1. If there were no facts to hide – they were hidden. If suspicions arose they were not met with explanations- because the details could not be released. If anyone owes everyone including the homeowners an explaination it’s whoever advised not engaged the public in the first place then to continue to advise withholding information even when answers were requested. So whoever this advisor it combination of advisors were they turned these three citizens they and not the councillor out these citizens in an awkward position. My understanding is in future scenarios such as these the city and councillors are committed to much better public engagement – that’s a good thing!!!
Didn’t this whole thing get started because of a lack of disclosure and public engagement well before any of the Citizens were mislead and misrepresented.
a) The process of selling the land was quietly done without the benefit of public engagement (in fact most local residents didnt even know the land was public prior to September 2013)
b) Somebody advised the details of the sale should be kept from the public. Apparently with nothing to hide nothing but the vacation should have been kept secret.
Everyone in the public and the homeowners are simply looking out for our own self interests. Maximizing their view of the lake and property values. The lack of disclosure is what turned this into a debate and aside from pricing, evaluation and negotiations everything should have been out on the table from day 1. If there were no facts to hide – they were hidden. If suspicions arose they were not met with explanations- because the details could not be released.
So sorry to hear people are having issues accessing the Survey. I haven’t looked at the comments for several days.
Try this link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PSJMHWG
All the best -Brian
Janice Connell is the only one that has ever provided the most accurate details relating to this whole situation.
It is unfortunate still, that the misleading information that has always clouded this matter continues to adversely impact these three sets of private citizens. The deal is done, over, finished. All was above board and the property owners should be acknowledged for their efforts at helping this city bring this matter to an end; a matter which has been outstanding for some 25 years or so.
This is an example of how the city has the capability of doing something positive for the best interests of everybody.
The city staff have always conducted themselves in a professional and competent manner, but, it is the duty of the city council to step up and stop the continued unwarranted public attacks on these people. It is the duty of this council to explain what happened and share the facts, which are not really that complicated. Transparency goes a long way, and those that have any interest in this matter are entitled to full disclosure. I doubt that these property owners would resist if people had access to the truth. The waterfront committee should definitely be afforded access to the facts they obviously do not yet have.
It would also be nice if the ward councillor Meed Ward would just put an end to this by simply sharing the facts in a transparent fashion. Nothing wrong happened here in any way whatsoever, other than misleading information.
One very pertinent flaw in your argument. City staff and Council members who attended the closed session where the decision to sell public waterfront land to private homeowners was made are bound by law to disclose nothing about the meeting or decision to the public. AND THEY HAVE CERTAINLY LIVED UP TO THAT EXPECTATION.
The only people who are completely free to disclose what circumstance or event from over twenty years ago allowed them to create an argument to compel Council to sell the land to them ARE THE HOMEOWNERS THEMSELVES.
If it is truly “not that complicated” then please ask your friends to start explaining. No one else can or will.
Private citizens owe nothing to disclose, nor do they have a duty to explain anything to anybody at anytime whatsoever.
The burden and duty of disclosure rests not on the staff, but, solely on this council to be accountable and transparent. This council can quite easily disclose the majority of the details related to the decision; there is nothing to hide; in fact, they should disclose the details to put people who have a keen interest, like the waterfront committee for example, at rest about the whole thing. The city did well; they did a fantastic job. It’s all good.
In this particular case, notwithstanding closed session protocol, it has become even more urgent for this city council to explain what happened, especially when one councillor took it upon herself to deliberately mislead the public on material facts; facts she should have know about prior to making a rogue vote and subsequent perpetual manipulation of the situation; facts that would have or should have been the basis for the decisions made by council; facts that were readily available to the public in any event if one knew where to look.
The persistent misleading actions taken by one council member of those fairly straight forward material facts, in the public forum and directed with primary focus on one particular couple, had resulted in the character assassinations of all three sets of private property owners. That is unacceptable on many levels. It also would have negatively affected the public’s confidence in city staff and council, which is not fair to staff, or, the integrity of this council.
These private citizens deserve the reversal of those offending actions, at the very least.
“Private citizens owe nothing to disclose, nor do they have a duty to explain anything to anybody at anytime whatsoever.” Really. What a totally absurd, inaccurate and irresponsible comment! The simple fact remains that if the property owners want the facts to come out, then they and only they can release all the details that you have been “chirping” about for the past ten months. If they fail to do so, then any discomfort that they experience is totally on them. Get a grip!
I think people deserve to know why council voted to sell city owned lands. It was council that voted, it was council that directed staff, but it was one council member who misled the public and caused damage in the form of character assassinations of good people.
She can start with an apology to go something like this: ” I am sorry for having misled the public on the facts of this matter and for leading the abuse of private citizens in the public forum; it was not intentional (although it was) but I should have known better, now here are the facts….”, and then this matter can be put to rest, even for anonymous interests like carpetbaggers who add entertainment value to some very serious moral and ethical challenges plaguing the governance of Ward 2. She could conclude by saying that every penny of revenue received by the city was more than what the property owners were liable to pay for the transfer of title to the lands that were four feet under water and necessary to accommodate a shoreline erosion protection retaining wall. There was never a pathway that she asserted was what was being sold. She caused a lot of damage to this whole matter.
She can also conclude by saying “had it not been for the extraordinary efforts made by three sets of private citizens of the downtown ward, the city would not have seen the benefits of the closure of a long outstanding matter, and also at the total financial cost of those private citizens”…something like that. I can write whatever script she will accept.
Private citizens who have been abused in public have no duty to disclose anything. The duty rests squarely on the rogue councillor. It is a good news story, so there should be no hesitation to promote how private citizens have gone to extreme measures to assist the city in doing the right thing.
The owners are waiting for the facts to be presented by those that represent them; so are a lot of other people that may have an interest in this.
These private property owners are owed an apology, and the correction of the material facts to be made in public by their local ward representative. Why not? Did the city council do something wrong?
The MNR land has been purchased and paid for.
Editor’s note:
That is not entirely true.
Title has yet to be transferred; funds are probably in escrow.
If the MNR land is not purchased- obviously the home owners save a bunch of money. I understand the Swartz residence is already putting up a fence and the Wilson residence on St.Paul is now for sale. Is there a possibility the homeowners are trying to pull a “fast one” here by doing the following:
a) purchase city land (done deal)
b). Refuse to purchase the MNR Land
c) Using the ruling from the 1990’s Ray Khana’s Market street property allowing him to fence in as a precedent to allow them to completely fence in their lots.
If the St.Paul Window includes fencing to the lake supplied by the city – we’ve essentially aided and abetted the landowners to have the quite enjoyment of MNR land for free. I don’t quite understand the legalese regarding the City allowing fence to go up back in the 90’s but I believe the City Staff will look very incompetent if the scenario described occurs- Is there any way the City can level set with the owners – no fences down to the lake until then MNR land is sold. — this is all assuming the mere possibility the MNR has not sold? Otherwise, I’d say “checkmate” to to the folks in the three homes!
Thanks for the feedback –
I’ve had a couple of comments on question 6: The survey is supposed to be lighthearted while accurately gathering feedback. When my grade 7 Teacher put “Spiderman” as an answer on a history test I theoretically could answer it – my answer would have got a big fat Zero. Under the same context – I don’t really expect anyone to answer “Do nothing I don’t want to see the water” at the Green St. Window – So realistically question #6 will be validated against the first 2 answers only & any “spiderman” answers will be ignored. A comment box is available if anyone feels they need to add to any of the questions.
I have also received some good feedback suggesting the mention of an accessible path as a requirement for those with disabilities introduces bias – My understanding is under the AODA there is a legal responsibility to provide accessibility to people with disabilities for anything newly built/created by the city or any government agency in Ontario. I have several solid sources (The actual legislation, references by the City during the meeting & some experience in a previous issue) if anyone has better info than I or know of a loop hole whereby the windows would be an exception – Leave a comment – direct me to the source and I’ll have it validated.
So far some really great comments and input from close neighbors and those in other Wards who want a say on these issues. Let me know if you have other comments about the survey.
Be sure to provide the required name, street number, postal code & email or I will discard your response. If I can’t verify who you are or if you’re a resident of Burlington the survey would not be valid. It’s a one per household survey.
I tried to get to the survey with the address given in the Gazette but could not get the specific survey. It just takes me to the multiple browser links.
Any advice?
Mr. Muir:
There is a live link that works at the Burlington Waterfront website:
https://www.burlingtonwaterfront.org
It may, however, be a case where the number of respondents has exceeded the number of the survey subscription.
Unfortunately while this survey is a great initiative it is not framed in an objective manner, for example:
“Do nothing – I don’t like seeing the water” as a response should instead just say “Do nothing”. Who are you to imply that one doesn’t like seeing the water simply because they don’t agree with investment or reconfiguration of area?
Bravo for doing this!
I hope the voices of the people are listened to unlike the issue of selling lakefront property to private residents.
I completed the survey.