By Gary Scobie
January 5, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
A four part feature on the city’s decision to sell small parcels of land that it owns that fronts on to Lake Ontario between Market and St. Paul Street. Part 2: The Scobie delegation.
I come here today with some hope in my heart. We have a new Council in session, and though the names and faces remain the same, we on the Waterfront Committee are hoping that perhaps, in the spirit of renewal of your vows to do what is best for all citizens of Burlington, you rethink this issue of selling public waterfront owned by all of us to a few chosen citizens.
Gary Scobie delegating on behalf of the Burlington Waterfront Committee to stop the sale of waterfront property owned by the city.
We have a grand vision; it’s actually a hundred year vision, not unlike the vision of the Waterfront Trust and their Ontario Waterfront Trail. Their vision is to link the public to their waterfront and to establish a contiguous walking trail along the shores of the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario first and next Lake Erie, followed by all the Great Lakes on our border. Theirs is certainly a long term vision.
Our vision in Burlington is to have a contiguous walking trail along our Lake Ontario and Burlington Bay shorelines. Each Window to the Lake is like a pearl; each trail between them is like a strand, so the end result would be like a strand of pearls along our shoreline. It could be magnificent.
This vision may seem unrealistic, yet big visions have been hatched and developed in our area before, with great success over time. My wife and I belong to the Bruce Trail Conservancy. The Conservancy is celebrating its 50th anniversary of inception in 2014. In 1964, a small group of dedicated visionaries imagined a natural walking path along the entire length of the Niagara Escarpment, from Queenston to Tobermory.
An “Optimum Route” was mapped out and volunteers began to work with local governments, landowners, conservation authorities and other naturalist groups to create this path on a protected from development basis. Their vision was certainly long term and audacious. Fifty years on, half of the 880 kilometer trail is secure in Conservancy hands or in the hands of government agencies.
The other 50% is either trail on private lands with landowner permission or routes on public roads where permission or ownership has not yet been attained. Will it take another 50 years to secure the whole trail? Perhaps, and maybe even longer, but the vision is still intact and progress toward the goal continues every single year.
This is what can happen when there is leadership and there is a grand vision. The same thing can happen over the next hundred years if we in Burlington dedicate ourselves to this mission.
Gary Scobie thought this could become one of the strands in the string of waterfront pearls that would become a complete Burlington Waterfront Trail.
We thought last year that we had a chance to put a strand in place between the Market and St. Paul Street Windows to the Lake. It didn’t even seem bold, since the land was already in public hands. A staff recommendation, with advice from the City’s Legal Department, recommended that the lands be retained for a future parkette and Waterfront Trail between the Windows.
This future trail would be similar, yet different to the Waterfront Trail at Sioux Lookout Park between Guelph Line and Walkers Line. It would have a good length, about two-thirds of that at Sioux Lookout, but would be quieter and more natural because it would be away from Lakeshore Road noise and activity, buffered by the houses between the trail and the main road. And instead of having two static “no exit” Windows at St. Paul and Market, the public would get a through trail whether coming from east or west.
An ideal place to walk or cycle through or take a break on a bench beside the trail and the shore while moving along the Waterfront Trail. Again, similar but different than the experience at Sioux Lookout.
But something unexpected happened. For reasons still not adequately explained to the public, the “old” Council discussed the issue in a closed session, then voted to sell the land, against staff and legal recommendations to retain it. Before our first strand had been completed, we saw a knife slice it and dash our hopes for the future.
Gary Scobie, second from the left, was part of the city’s Waterfront Advisory Committee and went on to be part of the Burlington Waterfront Committee. Councillor Marianne Meed Ward is on the far right.
Despite overwhelming numbers of delegates appearing here on October 13, 2013 to ask you to retain this shoreline land versus delegates asking to sell; despite overwhelming emails received urging retention versus sale, the “old” Council reversed the proportions and overwhelmingly voted 6 to 1 to sell the land, without any evidence given whatsoever that the broader public endorsed this view and the denial it imposed, possibly forever, of a public shoreline pathway there.
But a “new” Council may yet listen to our voices and the voices of neighboring residents and citizens who can see and share this vision of a start to the string of pearls that parkettes between Windows can be. We ask that you do not approve the sale of these lands to private interests and that you dedicate yourselves to preserving, not selling public waterfront. We ask that you look to ways to make use of other Water St. shore lands to form future strands. We ask that you look at ways that new development and re-development along our shores can create Waterfront Trail sections for the public. We ask that you consider what Burlington could be a long way down the road and that you buy into this long term vision, not put a dagger in its heart at its very inception.
Yesterday I received up updated advisory email from Marlaine Koehler, Executive Director of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, amending her Jan 20, 2014 memo to Council. In it she states their position might not have been clear then, in light of newer information.
The Waterfront Regeneration Trust’s position today is:
1. Public lands on the Great Lakes waterfront should stay in the public realm and accommodate the Waterfront Trail. Burlington was one of the founders of the Trail.
2. If in fact, the land sale can be revisited, The Waterfront Regeneration Trust urges the City to do so, and retain ownership/interest in the lands so that they may eventually be incorporated into Burlington’s Great Lakes waterfront system.
So today you will decide to send a clear message that Burlington either supports the Waterfront Trail or that it doesn’t.
No city signage on this piece of city owned property. Plans are in place to make a proper Window on the Lake at this location.
Burlington – Best Mid-Size City. Burlington – Family Friendly. Burlington – Urban and Rural. Burlington – Lake and Escarpment. In Burlington, we celebrate and boast of our waterfront. A decision now to sell means we will be adding a new moniker – Burlington – Public Waterfront For Sale.
Please stop these sales and approve your original staff recommendation to retain the land.
Gary Scobie has been around election issues for a long time. He was raised in Dundas, stayed there until graduating from McMaster, and considers Dundas his home town. He began working in Burlington in 1979 and has resided here since 1980. He has been involved in waterfront issues for the past six years and is a member of the Burlington Waterfront Committee.
Scobie was the lone delegator on the matter of the recommendation to stop up and close Water St. land parcels and sell the property to the three abutting property owners.
Links:
Part 1 How the decision to sell the waterfront property got made.
We would like to see a couple of paragraphs from former Mayor Mulkewich related to
1. Goldring’s “leadership” comment and
2. Rusin’s (who we understand from responses at all candidates meetings has more information on the sale than the average Burlington citizen) comment “The waterfront committee’s liaison Meed Ward had the lead duty to resolve any misunderstandings, and bring accurate information forward to all affected parties including the public, instead of what clearly has been an exploitation of the waterfront issues for selfish political gain (and at the expense of private citizens).”
If any one can wade through the politics and come up with reasonable opinions we think Mulkewich can.
Anne and Dave Marsden
The well intentioned waterfront committee could have been relieved of its extensive lobbying burden had council been transparent about the details supporting the decision making process to sell the lands. A lot of the information provided over the life of this matter has been inaccurate and misleading, including the continued reference to a court case which had no relevance to the decision made to sell the land. The waterfront committee’s liaison Meed Ward had the lead duty to resolve any misunderstandings, and bring accurate information forward to all affected parties including the public, instead of what clearly has been an exploitation of the waterfront issues for selfish political gain (and at the expense of private citizens).