By Pepper Parr
April 15, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
It is always awkward to watch a community bicker and squabble over interests that are different.
Residents in the Market, St. Paul and Green Street part of the city, south of Lakeshore Road, are tossing around parts of bylaws that were passed by city council and not giving the full context.
Truths are being stretched a little more than any truth should be stretched.
Getting the kind of Window on the Lake Staff recommended actually built is proving to be easier said than done.
The interests of a few are being put before the interests of the wider community – and in the process part of the vision many people thought was bedrock for Burlington is getting eaten away at the edges.
When city council decided to not go along with the staff recommendation to not sell land on the edge of the lake between Market and St. Paul Streets – they instead opted for significant upgrades to the Windows on the Lake that were at the end of each street.
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.
There are people who aren’t all that keen on having Windows on the Lake – even though they say they do want them – just not as prominent as the drawings prepared by city staff suggest.
Janice Connell, who has done a remarkable job of advocating for the sale of the land refers to a motion passed by the city:
Our concern at the public meeting is the discrepancy between the wording of Council’s approved motion and what was actually presented and discussed. Council invested considerable time (including visiting the properties) researching this issue and they were clear in their motion …”minimalistic manner (bench and signage) at St Paul and Market St.” and the “enhancement of Port Nelson Park with available funds.”
In the presentation, Staff was asked about the motion including “enhancing Port Nelson Park with available funds.” Staff replied that this was not part of the motion. This statement differs from the wording in the motion.
Some of the dissension could have been alleviated if a copy of the approved motion had been available at the presentation for the public to refer to. The wording of the approved motion is …”develop Windows-to-the-Lake at St Paul and Market St in a minimalistic manner (benches and signage).”
Over the past few years we have had ongoing concerns over misrepresentation of the facts regarding the Water St parcel as presented to the public. This has caused dissension and hard feelings amongst residents. We attended the public meeting hoping it would be an opportunity to connect with our neighbours in a positive setting. Needless to say the meeting caused further dissension amongst many residents.
Local parks should bring residents together. When less than truthful statements are given to the public it causes further dissension amongst residents. And unlike the simple correction of a misspelled name, it is not easy to correct the negative relationships amongst neighbours or the reputation of residents.
Brian Rose, an area resident, reminds people what was in the Staff report that had the three options. They chose option 3 on a 6-1 vote.
A concept drawing for the St. Paul Window on the Lake that city staff presented to residents at a public meeting.
Option Three – Dispose of Water Street Parcel and develop Windows-to-the-Lake. This option would involve:
• Selling the city and MNR water lots between St Paul Street and Market Street to the adjacent land owners
• Creation of Windows-to-the-Lake on the existing St. Paul Street and Market Street road allowances
• Proceeds from sale of property could finance a portion of the Windows to-the-
Lake implementation. Clear demarcation of land ownership with the formalization of the Windows-to-
the-Lake. Issues of encroachments would be resolved. Development of Windows-to-the-Lake is a clear message to residents of the opportunity to enjoy the waterfront.
Definition of windows to the lake as defined in the adopted report
Windows-to-the-Lake are described as small public areas located on city road allowances next to Lake Ontario or Burlington Bay; established to increase public access to the waterfront.
Windows-to-the-Lake typically are developed with the following amenities:
• Seating area(s)
• Walkway connections to the community
• Bike racks and refuse containers
• Fencing or barriers to control access to the water
• Parking located in the widow or on street depending on size, existing vegetation
and configuration
• Bollards or railings to keep vehicles on the road allowance
• Signage to identify as Windows-to-the-Lake.
The fact is that the people on St. Paul Street have been encroaching on city property and deliberately blocking public access to the lake.
Planners, parks and recreation people and the office of the city solicitor are preparing a team that will look into the encroachments that have been taking place throughout the city; none of their work will impact the mess we are looking at on the old Water Street road allowance.
All this will get discussed at city council meetings in June.
In the meantime a survey is being planned to get the views of those who live in the immediate area.
Is this the way people behave in Canada’s best mid-sized city?
The Committee meeting in June will likely be swarmed by delegations espousing the merit for ALL Burlingtonions to be able to enjoy a significantly enhanced Port Nelson Park. As you know, this Park sits at the foot of Guelph Line at Lakeshore Rd….2 heavily travelled, major City arteries. It has visibilty from both Guelph Line and Lakeshore and it has scale, including parking (which could be expanded) and handicapped access. This park is easily reachable by foot by any of those few who are expressing concern over a “minimilistic” approach to “windows”. Yes, let’s get the bench down at the “window” for a few to enjoy but the real potential for ALL to enjoy is at Port Nelson….Mr. Wonderful and Mr Millington, I like the way you think!
There should at the very least be a marina at the base of Port Nelson Park, and maybe even a nice bar with outdoor patio stretching out over the water, taking advantage of existing parking and the real potential for a beach area.
Dang! The reply button ran out on your previous comment to Oliver B. Good sleuthing though. Sincerely, I need to commend you on your comments over the years. Whether you are Peter or Mr. Wonderful, your input is often thought provoking and necessary to fulfill broader scrutiny and discussion (credit to the Gazette for facilitating such a forum). Allow me to say your perception of “clarity” and “reason” may be better expressed by a fuller disclosure of your involvement in what are deemed to be civic matters.
Agreed the minutes are confusing “bench & sign”is vague and also “minimalistic” is up for interpretation. Currently what is a done deal is the marching orders to sell the Waterfront parcels & fix up these windows at Market and St.Paul has been given by council & funding approved – regardless how you interpret it that means at a minimum a Bench, a Sign are already signed off. I would also assume even from a minimalistic perspective Jack missed a couple of minimalistic items that city staff report picked up on- A fence at the lake is needed + a minimalistic paved path enough to allow access for strollers, walkers and wheel chairs for those with mobility issues. Although a completely separate issue significant work was done to Port Nelson park last year you should come check it out –
What I think is up for discussion here and where everyone’s input is so important is regarding the necessity of “extras” that go beyond minimalism.
My self-personally I would like see the windows opened and enhanced eliminating anything unnecessarily obstructing the view of the lake from the street view by going with a very low profile approach. Extras like planters & bike racks can quickly become If we want to be realistic about this the Windows will not be high traffic areas, occasionally a car may pull up and park for 10 minutes. People will stroll in and out maybe sit on the bench and look out at the lake. We keep focusing on the physical usage of the Windows by people and the potential but likely infrequent negative consequences. To me these are a city assets to be shown off and admired for all to enjoy and that comes from more than local residence physically visiting the window it’s when someone is stuck in traffic on Lakeshore at 5pm going back to Aldershot or Hamilton and they get to peek out a the lake. It’s when family and friends visit from out of town and get a real sense we are a waterfront community, it’s the feeling you get when you drive down Market, Green or St. Paul’s in the morning and look out to be lake.
I hear the argument of people in other wards not wanting to pay for something not in there neighbourhood – Well I don’t get out to all the parks in Burlington but I know other people are enjoying them and in return maybe their paying for something in my neighbourhood. I’m sure some people in Ancaster aren’t thrilled about paying to revitalize and maintain Hamiltons downtown insfrasturcture and parks. Your federal money is going to Banff national park maybe some people aren’t ok with that? It’s called civic pride in your city and not just your neighbourhood – If you don’t like being part of a city you could try to create a township however you won’t be able to use the Butlington Library, Pools, Schools etc.
As for the budget issue – It s actually free – better than free — we’ve inadvertently created a public private partnership by selling off public lands to private intrrests – in effect increasing the private interests property values – A portion of the money paid by the private interests is used to develop the windows the remainder goes into the public coffers. In addition the private property is now waterfront and thus the taxes for said properties increase and become a recurring revenue stream for the city. Despite what your thoughts are in the sale of public waterfront lands – economically this is super win for the city.
Every little piece makes up the whole ..it’s every little window plays a part.
How can anyone who is not within close walking distance of these proposed “windows” possibly derive any benefit from their tax dollars being directed towards their development. That is precisely why Council approved a “minimalistic” approach. The motion gives further direction to “enhance Port Nelson Park”…3 houses away from St. Paul St. This is where the value lies for ALL City Residents. Port Nelson has an existing playground, numerous seating and eating areas and most importantly….PARKING (including handicapped access). Some improvements have already been made but so much more can be done…much to the benefit of all who choose to drive, park and enjoy! It also has scale which means that monies spent can be enjoyed by the population at large. Suggestions have been made to include a walkway down to the shoreline and possibly the addition of a pebble beach. Let’s ensure that funds are directed in a way that benefit all of us.
I am so disgusted with this whole mess. Council gave away our waterfront, our heritage, to a few rich elitists for a pittance that will do little to benefit the city. On the other end the region is buying up properties on the beachfront for what I am quite sure is over market value while there are more important things that need funding, such as infrastructure. Now there is squabbling over windows on the lake the last bit of our heritage, our right as citizens to have access to the lake which is owned by all. I as so fed up with mismanagement of our money that I am seriously considering not paying my taxes in protest.
I’m confused! When I read the approved council motion, it states “minimalistic manner(benches, signage).
Is the information from the report as presented by Mr Rose a Staff report? If so, does it override the vote of the 6 council members who voted for minimalisistic, benches and signage?
Lots of petty stuff going on over two small parkette areas in a neighbourhood that already has Port Nelson Park a few houses away. It seems greedy to want all the money to go into two small parkettes. As there is no parking at either St Paul or Market St, wouldn’t it make more sense to keep the two Windows minimalistic and invest more money into Port Nelson Park where there is ample parking and more residents could benefit?
Hope Councillor Dennison fights for some of the money for Port Nelson Park that residents in Ward 2 feel they are entitled to. Hope Council keeps voting for what is best for all residents in Burlington and not for the few who already have a wonderful waterfront park within walking distance. And would someone please tell me who is in charge in Burlington…Council or Staff?
Good question – who is in charge..?
Council decided “what is best for all residents of Burlington” when they gave up a City owned legacy waterfront property. The money derived from the sale is inconsequential to the residents of Ward 2 because it is a pittance. It will be gobbled up by Council salaries within a matter of a few months and the land will be gone forever. “Petty”, “greedy”, “entitled”, Really?
Many have been pondering your question since this Water St. disaster began however, “who is in charge”?
HOW MANY PARKS DO THESE PEOPLE NEED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE REST OF THE TAXPAYERS.
A PARK AT GUELPH LINE AND THE LAKE. ONE OF THE LARGEST PARKS IF NOT THE LARGEST PARK IN BURLINGTON AT THE FOOT OF BRANT STREET. STRETCHES FROM EMMA’S TO THE CANAL.
“These People”! Really? I think that your ‘privilege’ is showing. But “not on your nickel” – right?
Millington has a good point. If you think about this whole situation, Millington sums up the story quite accurately; he is a pragmatic thinker, a simple but also a wise man of sorts. How many individual park areas should there be for a few of those people at the expense of many? One must ponder the wisdom behind such an assessment.
Ponder long and deeply Mr. W.
Millington is right. Entitlement seekers need to start paying for their own stuff in this new age. Want something? Pay for it.
Market St, St. Paul and the Water St. parcel could have counted as one “individual park”. You were instrumental in the sale of that property, were you not? Speaking of the “expense of many”, keep in mind that you previously stated that the Water St. parcel had a value of zero $. To use your words,”One must ponder the wisdom behind such an assessment”. Especially in the event that you choose to run for Mayor again.
Mr. Wonderful provides wisdom, and he does not run, he walks. Millington is still the voice of reason on the issue of number of parks and who is to pay for all this stuff. The simplicity of Millington’s common sense words will likely bring tears to the eyes of those that truly believe in the truth; there is now light where there was once darkness. Thank you Tony for helping bring clarity to those who remain confused. Millington for Mayor.