The owners of some of the businesses in the plaza at Wellington and Gordon have turned to the OMB to express their dissatisfaction with a city plan to eventually buy the property and raze the buildings.
The Downtown Secondary Plan envisions a park along the river at the southeast corner of the intersection. The plan is to begin acquiring the properties 10 years from now with an eye to developing the park about nine years after that.
But some of the business owners say the uncertainty surrounding their future is causing problems for them now. Read Rob O'Flanagan's story about the issue here.
I have to admit I'm a bit torn on this one. I understand the business owners' position and sympathize with them, but at the same time I have felt during my 22 years in Guelph that plaza was one of the worst uses or riverfront property I have ever seen. With the long-term plan for downtown including massive residential growth, including two highrises at Wellington and Wyndham, a park seems a good use for the property.
There is enough park along the river already. We don't need more. This idea is one of the most ridiculous plans that the city has introduced. More tax dollars wasted and forcing all these stores to close. These business are important to both owners and customers. Buy the old Rockwell property across the street and fix it up. 24 years this vacant lot has been an eyesore.
Posted by: Gord | December 11, 2012 at 04:13 PM
That property has already been purchased and a development application -- reportedly to include an organic grocery store -- tabled.
Posted by: Scott Tracey | December 11, 2012 at 05:01 PM
Scott, this proposal reminds me of those occasions when someone agitates for an ideal while knowing full-well practical considerations will show it to be inadvisable. Like recommending public policy that should not ever leave the drawing board, all as part of being "the good guys".
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | December 11, 2012 at 05:25 PM
The City is broke and will be for the foreseeable future, thanks Karen. Eliminating viable businesses that pay into City coffers is not going to happen.
Posted by: geo | December 11, 2012 at 06:55 PM
WHY! Ask all guelphites....If not you will see more of tax payers money wasted.
Posted by: Natwork | December 11, 2012 at 07:38 PM
Can someone comment on the suspected subterranean contamination resulting from the former coal gasification plant(now the city-owned parking lot bounded by FARQUAHAR/FOUNTAIN/WYNDHAM) that allegedly infects most of the properties SOUTH of the GPS station to the SPEED RIVER?Let's support these long-established businesses and cancel any such plans to expropriate them.
Posted by: David Birtwistle | December 11, 2012 at 07:39 PM
Why not just give these businesses free money courtesy of me and you to beautify their offensive facades, just like they do all the other downtown businesses. Hell, they gave a single downtown bar $400,000 for beautification. That's pretty much the entire $500,000 in efficiencies Staff is going to find to keep our taxes down.
Giving public money to a private business based on where it's located should be against the law.
Posted by: geo | December 11, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Council and staff were wise to take a long view on this issue. As Scott says, that plaza with its back to the river was a huge mistake when it was built.
Here's the thing - businesses can and do move, and thrive. The river can't be moved.
Creating an unbroken strip of parkland along the Speed will contribute to the long-term quality of life in Guelph. And the facade funding contributes to the vibrancy of the downtown.
Why are such things important? Because when an employer with high-quality jobs is looking for the right city for their business, they look at quality of life and the vibrancy of the downtown. I'm sure it is very clear to such companies when a city has not been developed with the long view in mind - and they quickly scratch such cities off their list.
I have been a customer of each of the businesses involved in this OMB challenge, and I do sympathize. Perhaps the City can work towards some sort of compensation agreement. If this project really is for the benefit of all in Guelph, then affected businesses should not be made to suffer for it.
Posted by: Dave Sills | December 11, 2012 at 08:49 PM
First Question: - Just how much property taxes do the owners of the buildings pay to the City? THAT SHOULD BE THE FIRST THING THAT THE PUNLIC IS TOLD, BUY the City will never tellus.
So a GOOD Journalist should be able to get that information from the property owners! Not a difficult thing to do!
Second Question: How is the City going to cut this LOSS of Commercial taxes, not just on this property and all the other ones on Wyndham Street?
Maggie likes to throw out "the race to the bottom", but not in this case. And that is exactly the Legacy that the Mayor and her seven supporterss on Council will leave to this City all in the "interests of progress". Sad, very very sad"
Where is the transparency in all of these issues? - BURIED in doubletalk!
Posted by: Serious Cynic | December 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Just for your info, here is a clip from a former Guelph Journalist which I think indicates the danger of a "team" on Council and the effect it has on the so-called "transparency and ethics"
I suppose the person who wrote this is glad he no longer lives in Guelph as his worse fears have come true! The worst part of it is that the minority on Council have in my opinion "given up". Shame, Shame, Shame<
--
--
--
The last thing I want to see at Guelph City Hall is a team, a cohesive bunch who agree on almost everything. There is danger here for public debate, public discussion and transparency. Discussions and decisions would happen in back rooms, bars and ball game bleachers, places where a social occasion can turn into a private council meeting. No, for open debate we need disagreement brought into the council chamber.
As a citizen and journalist, I find the discord – close votes, finger-pointing, raised voices and tempers, yelling, gavel banging – rather comforting.
Posted by: Serious Cynic | December 11, 2012 at 10:33 PM
HI Dave Sills
That might be correct in other cities but here
in Guelph it is more like how much money is
council/mayor is willing to pay out to the new
business for them to build in Guelph.
Examples...Linamr,new building on Wyndham and
Woolwich,old woods site and others.
And your idea of a unbroken parkland along the
Speed river is a nice thought but does that include
the business on York rd too.When does this fairy land in this city end.
Posted by: Jerry | December 12, 2012 at 05:02 AM
Jerry, what business on York Rd. are you referring to? There is already an unbroken strip of parkland along the Eramosa River all along York Road to Victoria Road. The green space continues on the other side of the Eramosa River from there, pretty much all the way to Everton.
Along the Speed River, there is only one break in the green space along the river between the Hanlon and Guelph Lake - and that is at - you guessed it - the Wellington / Gordon plaza!
Posted by: Dave Sills | December 12, 2012 at 08:33 AM
The city is giving the business owners ten years of advance notice before they even begin to buy up the properties. That's plenty of time for them to prepare, especially since there is a new plaza in the works just across the road.
Plus these businesses probably lease their current locations, and lessees are always at the mercy of ownership changes. It's doubtful the OMB will be much help to them if the current building owners decide to sell to the city.
I think the public benefit outweighs the inconvenience to the businesses.
Posted by: Steve | December 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM
This direction and the decision to release the proposed plans so early is exactly like how they handled Wyndham N., screwing over both the tenants and the landlords. A sort of "tenant-chill" emerges, as only an idiot would locate at a site soon to be bulldozed, and as each of your neighbours leaves, not to be replaced, you find the customer-base dwindling as well. Some sort of compassionate compensation would seem to be in order, but this council, at least the majority of it, seems to have no heart.
Posted by: Dis-a-Ray Antiques | December 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM
1) ok, so once access to the river's edge is achieved in 10 years by evicting those businesses and tearing down the plazas, will the City then order property owners on the other side of the river to clean up their environmental mess? And will I end up paying for that as well?
2) is the City going ahead with site remediation of the very large abandoned lot across the street? In my mind, that's a much bigger dent in the "quality of life" tally sheet than the small strip mall across the street full of real working businesses. Or, will the City simply sit and wait for some developer to come along with hand extended for a remediation grant and plans to build a new strip mall right across the street from the one they just ordered destroyed?
and 3) if the intent is to clean up that area of downtown and make it more people-friendly and beautiful, then can we all also assume the City has plans to raze the ugliness that is fast food alley?
i mean, where does it stop?
Posted by: D C | December 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM
DC,
To address some of your points:
The remediation of the "very large abandoned lot" across the street will go ahead, because as I noted in an earlier comment a developer has bought it and tabled plans for a commercial development. And yes, I believe council has already approved a tax increment-based grant to help cover the costs of cleaning it up.
In response to your third question, the Downtown Secondary Plan does foresee razing "fast food alley" in favour of midrise buildings on the north side of Wellington east of Gordon, likely with commercial on the ground floor and offices and/or condos above.
I do agree with Ray -- and have expressed this concern before -- that floating the idea of buying and demolishing the plaza is precisely what the city did with Wyndham Street North. Once word gets out the time is ticking on the plaza, no new businesses will be interested in locating there and as leases expire one assumes the current tenants will look for new homes.
The plaza could become a ghost town long before the city is in a position to acquire the properties (which incidentally is exactly what happened on Wyndham)
Posted by: Scott Tracey | December 12, 2012 at 01:45 PM
What Ray and Scott said!!
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | December 12, 2012 at 03:02 PM
The timeline seems to suggest that the city will buy the properties but won't tear them down until several years after. So the city is in a position to encourage tenant businesses to stay by offering reduced rent charges and relocation assistance to any tenants that are still there when they take over ownership, averting the ghost town problem.
Hopefully something like that is part of their plan.
Posted by: Steve | December 12, 2012 at 04:58 PM
Replace commercial with more residential, beyond stupid.
Posted by: geo | December 12, 2012 at 05:26 PM
I live just down the street in the Ward and think this plan is beyond stupid.
1) The city wants to people to stop using cars and be more environmentally friendly. So they take way Short Stop, the closest thing we have to a grocery store, to force us to get into our cars to make emergency trips for bread and milk?
2) I can also walk to the pharmacy when needed but because of mobility issues need to drive. Again, instead of a couple of minutes-drive to this plaza I now have to drive further to take care of my medical needs?
3) Which business in their right mind will move in on a short-term knowing they'll have to move out - unless it's at a fire-sale lease cost and then the city loses money.
I said it when this plan was first announced: it's a bad, bad, bad plan. I hope the businesses get some traction with the OMB and stop the city's stupid plans in its tracks.
Posted by: Robert White | December 12, 2012 at 06:56 PM
Dave, there is no way to measure any such improvement in the quality of life by removing commercial activity from that strip and no doubt there are real numbers and reasons that would demonstrate the opposite. I very much doubt the extent of improvements in someone's quality of life with this proposal. It's surrounded by parks. No one is locating or not locating in Guelph based on whether we have that area in parkland for geese or something else.
Honestly.
http://www.craigchamberlainonline.com
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | December 12, 2012 at 08:56 PM
HI Dave
You are correct about York rd.
I should of said Wyndham st South that goes
along the other side of the Speed river.
There are business along that stretch of the
river too.Is the city going to buy up that
property too?.Or is it safe because it out of
site out of mind?.
Posted by: Jerry | December 12, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Right on, Jerry. How far are we going to take it?
What about the properties in that strip between Woolwich Street and the Speed River, from Speedvale Avenue to Woodlawn Road?
Perhaps our quality of life would improve if City Hall was leveled and the area made into a park. At least then the splash pad/ rink would then make more sense...
Btw, you can go Royal City Park for a splash pad/ rink but you likely wouldn't park at Royal City Park to conduct business at City Hall... so what is this talk about long term visioning, Dave? I'm coming to City Hall to start talking about the business that I'm thinking of locating here and... I can't find a place to park... at your new City Hall... Hmmm.
Honestly, Dave. WHERE IS the thinking? Why are we ignoring/ downgrading basic, pragmatic if admittedly not "sexy" things in our thinking like being able to park at a city hall? In a city with lots of parkland, with no doubt investment needs already, before we take on any more.
We're going to invest BIG with no return, in fact, a loss of present return, while incurring additional on-going maintenance costs. No taxes? Disruptions to livelihoods? Really?
Seriously, the direction of this City has officially jumped the shark with this one.
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | December 13, 2012 at 05:08 AM
Dave, There is a clash between:
"Civic beauty, culture and arts as priorities"
and
"Support for local businesses"
It appears, for you, former won. There can't be right?
Posted by: Natwork | December 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Let's look at facts. At present the only decision that has been made, as part of the Downtown Secondary Plan approved last spring, is that funds will be set aside earmarked for the eventual purchase of these properties ten years from now. The decision to build the park hasn't been made. The decision to purchase the properties hasn't been made. Only the decision to begin saving money. If those other decisions eventually get made it will be by a different council three elections from now.
So what, exactly, are the business owners asking the OMB to do? Stop the city from accumulating the funds? Overturn the Downtown Secondary Plan, which at this point isn't binding in any of its provisions?
My prediction is the OMB won't touch this.
Posted by: Steve | December 13, 2012 at 11:56 AM
So, Steve, the City will promise to help with re-location of tenants? Just like they promised me? Only they'll make an empty building a condition of sale and then get to save a couple of grand at the cost of their souls. These people aren't really people, they are at best heartless monsters. I don't know why you keep defending them.
Posted by: Dis-a-Ray Antiques | December 13, 2012 at 01:16 PM
And I don't know why you keep saying I'm defending them. I think a park at that location is better than the current situation of having a strip mall just a few meters from the river bank. That has nothing at all to do with the current council.
And if they do eventually buy the properties and kick out the tenants, it'll be a vastly different council ten years down the road. Hell, even Mayor Guthrie will have moved on by then to his new position as Ontario PC leader.
Posted by: Steve | December 13, 2012 at 01:54 PM
Someone mentioned tenant chill, apparently it has already started. I was at the Guelph Cat Clinic yesterday and they are moving to Surrey St. One of the reasons cited was the long term plan to tear down the building they are in.
This false manipulation of the commercial environment is beyond stupid, its something that would have gone on in 60's in countries behind the iron curtain. All for the sake of more downtown parkland?
Really, do we need MORE parks downtown? Really? Ridiculous, but as long as the Mayor, her gang of seven and their PR group (aka Guelph Civic League) are spending other peoples money on their crazy schemes it all OK right?
What nonsense!
Posted by: K Morant | December 13, 2012 at 02:37 PM
Guelph Civic League has mandate along these lines:
* Smart industrial development to offset taxes
* Support for local businesses
Which one are they following.....
Mayor Guthrie? I can live with that choice. Bring it on.
Posted by: Natwork | December 13, 2012 at 02:44 PM
Steve, you are either woefully naive or you are in league with them. You (and they) should not have the right to bankrupt businesses and ruin lives unless it can be proven that it was for the greater good. Mr. Lee, from Lee's Convenience, now works at Linemar. It cost Wyndham Arts $25,000+ to move. Attic Treasures is now gone forever. 50+ tenants have lost their homes, and I lost a $50,000 business. And not one speck of compensation or sympathy or humanity. This council has bulldozed and demolished while at the same time built splash pads and museums, and it has pushed us to the brink of bankruptcy. And now they are trying to do it again. You should not be defending them, you should be leading the charge against.
Posted by: Dis-a-Ray Antiques | December 13, 2012 at 03:59 PM
Hopefully the OMB is populated by people who have to pay their own way and are capable of wrapping their heads around the credit, debit concept.
Posted by: geo | December 13, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Ray, I sympathize - with the Wyndham case especially because I'm against the new library building - and think those affected should get compensation. $25K or $50K to move a business is nothing compared to the cost of buying and razing the property so it should have been picked up by the city as part of the plan.
And any renter knows their home no more secure than the whims of their landlord. They sell to a new owner and you're gone, without 10-20 years advance notice.
Plus as I said before, this is only a plan to save up money for an eventual possibility. If the people don't want another park they can vote in a mayor and council that will shut it down and draw up a whole new plan. Three elections between now and then. There's no decisions for the OMB to overturn yet.
And I'm in league with no one.
Posted by: Steve | December 13, 2012 at 07:39 PM
Steve:
Question: And what do you suggest they do with the money they have collected - ILLEGALY because there was no designated project FIRST? Give it back?? Impossible.
Shift it to sidewalks on Woodlawn? NO that would keep Bob Bell happy, VERBOTEN!!
Piss it away on some nutbar social project?
Why not give it to Sister Christine, after all she is one of the few in this "fare" City with a heart.
First you need a goal, then you need a plan.
Then you follow or revise the plan as things jump up and bite you in the derrier.
BTW by the tone of your replies it looks to me like you are awolf in sheep;s clothing.
Posted by: Serious Cynic | December 13, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Illegally? It was part of the Secondary Plan passed by a democratically elected council. If a future council decides to change the plan then the money is available for that council to direct towards something else.
Can you explain the wolf in sheep's clothing remark? I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Posted by: Steve | December 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM
It's probably because you keep defending the indefensible. Council keeps making moronic decisions and you seem to agree with most of them. Your heart appears to be in the right place; we're just not sure about your head.
Posted by: Dis-a-Ray Antiques | December 14, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Thanks Ray for explaining my opinion to Steve.
As for the Secondary Plan, it is not binding on sny futire Council. A resolution of Council is UNTIL another Councio revisits it. Read the Mercury today and see what a confused mess this is for the building owners and store tenants. For the City to cause 20 years of uncertainty for these people is totally insane. Read Ray's previous points on the City killing small businesses on Wyndham Street. The City under the vision of the present Mayor has hurt many small businesses and got rid of several low-cost apartments all in the name of PROGRESS!!
On another progam Garbage collection, if you pay attention, on a three BAG collection week, the City no longer sends out two trucks. They send out ONE, and all three bags are lovingly dumped into the same truck. If you then follow that truck when it is full, it then goes to the Transfer Station and loaded on the next LANDFILL truck. I know of other people who have followed the truck or witnessed the single truck solution.
I can hardly wait for my turn at the "new and improved" three cart system - a total waste of over $50 millions to date. I cannot believe that the City did not try a Pilot on this first to discover the many design flaws that frustrate the residential residents as is evidenced by Letters to the Editor. The City is making a great case for outsourcing this service. Of course that will have to wait until the latest and greatest Compost Plant rots out in less than 20 years.
Sadly BS still baffles Brains.
Posted by: Serious Cynic | December 14, 2012 at 01:34 PM
The level of discourse on this blog is getting more and more juvenile. Functional adults can usually respect opinions and the people who hold them even if they disagree.
And Serious Cynic, or Paul, or whatever other aliases you go by here, it's simply not true that all the garbage goes in the same pile. Most trucks have different compartments.
Posted by: Steve | December 14, 2012 at 04:25 PM
Most trucks have different compartments? The City has been at this a long time. Shouldn't all the trucks have different compartments?
Posted by: geo | December 14, 2012 at 06:01 PM
Steve:
You piece of human Garbage, I said IF YOU PAY ATTENTION - etc, but why waste my time on a ninny like you? Have you done what I suggested? - NO.
Have you followed the garbage truck to see where it goes? NO
Do you support the Mayor and her Green fantasyland? YES.
Look idiot, I know there are two bins in each truck, not more as you insinuate by your term "several" (another trick of misinformation as practiced by the Mayor's supporters), but when the City sends out one truck on a 3 week pickup, when they formerly sent out two, where do you think the third bag goes? And why does the truck once loaded go to the Transfer station. WSpeaking of aliases, what is your real name? Karen? OOPS now I have sunk to your level!
So unless you have checked it out, don't bother me with your blind support of a failed agenda.
Posted by: Serious Cynic | December 14, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Sure, Steve sometimes makes me want to pull out my hair, but what's the point of a forum like this for it to be anything otherwise?
Steve takes a position honestly. I don't think he's here spinning for anyone. I don't think I've seen him be duplicitous in what he posts. Can't think of any out-and-out sucker punches.
Steve, I do think you're missing something on this one though.
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | December 15, 2012 at 09:29 AM
Gotta say here "serious", after sitting back for sometime reading the posts here and chuckling, will cover that later, I can say I have met Steve in person. Guess you haven't, which is a shame. Ever notice when u meet someone in person how your perspective can change and open your mind to their way of thinking. I don't agree with Steve on a number of things, but also know after meeting him, I can talk and argue our points logically. Maybe if someone calls for a coffee meet you might attend and then appreciate better. Through such communications, maybe you can unite and do what is right by the city. Right now I only see blowhards, shooting from the hip and the city continues on a path that leads who knows where. Craig - as always, keep the mind open to other thoughts and ideas. Cudos to you and Steve, I hope you will never stop, but do keep an open mind to logical conversations.
Posted by: Jim | December 15, 2012 at 01:15 PM
Ray, on behalf of all Morons I object to your slighting comment somewhere up above....
Other than that with all the downtown and area redevelopment who in their right mind would not see the Wellington strip mall as being on a short list for redevelopment whether to parkland or some highrise with waterfront integration... across the street will go as well once someone somewhere faces up to all the toxic crap which is beneath the Fountain Street parking lot....
So Taco Bell is gone already, line up for a set of goodbye ceremonies to the KFC and Timmy and other bolted down temporary structures that pass for fast food franchises....
Posted by: Edward Pickersgill | December 15, 2012 at 11:00 PM
This entire plan to Gentrify the Downtown and create an unobstructed view of the river exists so that a sliver of Guelph's population can live like the upper crust of 1910. The rest of us are just in the way.
This teenie weenie segment of Guelph's population will continue to run the show, sending costs and City staffing levels spiralling out of control unless you get off your ass and vote.
The you I am refering to are all the people in Guelph who indulge in "coffee table bitching" about our current administation but when you read the municipal election stats only 30% of eligible voters bothered to turn out.
Posted by: geo | December 16, 2012 at 09:21 AM
Of course, no one has any illusions about how any city evolves, but perhaps we can cool off on the publicly-funded vanity-driven redevelopment and allow private investment do it, where someone's own money is on the line -- which, with approvals means an approach that will improve on what is there now. And quite possibly the City isn't the only entity capable of advancing greater good, and even, beauty.
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | December 16, 2012 at 10:26 AM
The new City Hall is many things but beautiful is not one of them.
Posted by: geo | December 16, 2012 at 11:29 AM
This may be a little off topic but I found it interesting. We just arrived home from a weekend in Collingwood. Beautiful,thriving town. Guess what,they have a Wallmart and many other "Big Box Stores". Their Downtown is a busy, happy place with many different choices. I spoke to several merchants about the reason for the success of their main street and they all said that the skiing may draw a lot of people to the resorts but unless the slopes were closed they never really see this crowd. They are surviving on their own initiatives and by all accounts doing very well. Maybe our downtown merchants should be doing something to actually bring people to their doors. Take Ray for example, most days he has stuff sitting outside which draws your eye to his business. A downtown doesn't exist on the "build it and they will come" theory.
Posted by: Rob B. | December 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Rob, right on. We have fantastic businesses downtown with winning formats. So long as the roads aren't always closed for work, dug up, etc. The crux of the problem here is the City's cap investment downtown really is about City Hall's "front porch" and less about the merchants, unless of course you need to point to them for the reason for the work... in the name of downtown revitalization. If a merchant fails as a result of the improvements, with all that THAT means for those business owners and their staff and suppliers, others will come, right, City Hall?
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | December 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM
yea i am slightly annoyed that the city is getting rid of this plaza and... from what I gather the KFC, Tim Hortons, Petrol Canada, Quiznos, and Taco Bell, and at the same time try and figure out where the city is going to put all these businesses, but of course I keep on voting and we keep on getting poor leadership, like Guelph is so backwards, one would think a city would like getting businesses in, instead of pissing off every resident with lame bylaws, stripping peoples rights, making people sort garbage etc.
Posted by: l.m. | December 16, 2012 at 12:48 PM
I think you're right Craig. City Hall did seem to concentrate their main improvements only along the Carden St. strip in front of city hall. And you really cannot place the blame for the state of downtown on any previous adminstration in the past 15 years. Downtown was doomed during the move to modernize during the late 60"s and 70's. Getting rid of the the old limestone structures forever changed the feel of downtown Guelph. The closing of Quebec St. only added to the problem. I make it a promise to shop downtown as much as I can, especially during christmas but there is only so much available and in todays busy world "sunday shopping" is vital. If I were lucky enough to be retired or independently wealthy I could shop within the constraints of the business hours but that is not always possible given family and a 40+ hour week at work. Besides, some of the stores downtown rely on their choice of location. I have no idea what kind of rent Ray pays or if he owns the building outright, but I'm positive that if he were to move into a mall he would not only be paying a much higher rent but would completely lose the ambience needed to highlite his store and in the end the higher rent would problably negate any profits of a much stronger customer base. Downtown is shot and it should be up to the owners and operators to bring customers to their stores, not the taxpayers. For instance, now that we have 2 hour free parking why isn't the DBM petitioning for angle parking. That would solve a lot of problems to start with. Turn the walkways into SALE ways, open sunday, compete with the mall hours. Offer family friendly incentives to bring people downtown. Children friendly activities are a sure way to create business. There are so many possibilities that the board could pursue that it is truly sad not to see them taking place. It is also sad that all that needs to take place for this to happen is for the DBM members to visit other successful communites and duplicate what works, who cares if it's not unique to Guelph as long as it's successful.
Posted by: Rob B. | December 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Let’s see if we can break this down and figure out what’s really going on.
Think “Smart Growth”.
Then add a dash of “sustainable development”.
Now mix with “Environmental Justice” and “Social Equality and Fairness”.
What local mayor taught this crap at her previous “job” at a local university?
Where does this crap really come from and what is the purpose behind it?
Unfortunately, Guelph has been sucked into the United Nations Agenda 21 trap that seems to be growing throughout North America.
The good news is that many local, regional and higher levels of government are resisting or refusing to take part in this back door program.
I can only speak for myself, but, I don’t much care for social engineering and I am very concerned about how much has been ignored in order to advance “the greater good”.
Just my opinion.
I could be wrong
Posted by: Doug | December 16, 2012 at 02:11 PM
I myself think the mayor and council are a bunch of idiots, there are ways to bring businesses downtown that every neighboring city actually does. Kitchener does New Years Eve downtown with festivities there including fireworks. This is a boon for restaurants and bars, because there is a chance the person will be a return customer, not only do local businesses get noticed by people there, restaurants and bars will also get business from the people. But since the new years eve thing is run by lions club in Guelph theres no chance in hell
Posted by: louis | December 17, 2012 at 08:46 AM
wow ... so much angst here, lol
on the surface it does seem a bit misguided that the City is planning to tear down a functional workplace and force dozens of people out of the downtown. isn't that the polar opposite of the grand plan of bringing jobs and people to the downtown? hmmm
request for clarification ... which buildings does the plan require being removed? there are two strip malls there ... the western one with franco's, harbour fish&chips (its good, btw, check it out before its gone) and shortstop, and the eastern one with angel's diner ... as well as two self-contained buildings to the south, including the vet clinic. are all structure to be removed?
Posted by: D C | December 17, 2012 at 12:05 PM
All gone. And everything on the north side of Wellington as well, though some of that may re-appear as ground-floor commercial in condo towers. In fact, what we are really looking at is an improved view for condo-owners, although the city is too sack-of-crappy
to admit it. The developers rule, council follows their money like sheep.
Posted by: Dis-a-Ray Antiques | December 17, 2012 at 02:05 PM
A downtown full of condos is not gonna fly. Read Garth Turner's blog
Posted by: geo | December 17, 2012 at 04:45 PM
Serious
On Dec 14, you asked why the city did not do a Pilot trial of the bins. They did, and I was in the trial area for over a year. Result of trial? Bins were not cost effective, and were very inefficient. So, we had the bins removed, Lord only knows what happened to those trucks, and we were returned to the 3 stream bag system.
But, I gotta say, for now, I do like the bins. I am just waiting for the winter, snow, and plugged driveways to see how some of my elderly neighbours manage.
Posted by: sifad | December 17, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Sifad:
Thanks for the update. So the trial run was not a success in your opinion! Did other people agree with your assessment? Or was the feedback even sought? Wow, full speed ahead and damn the torpedos. Or were the negative comments "filtered out"? I do not recall any staff reports on this trial run. So if the reports were dealt with at Committee, it would be nice to get a link to the minutes. Thanks for any help you can give.
Posted by: Serious Cynic | December 17, 2012 at 06:10 PM
"The plaza could become a ghost town long before the city is in a position to acquire the properties"
This is exactly what Farbridge and company want. The nest election cannot come soon enough to throw this horrible elitist and her 7 rubber stamps out of office. And that goes for many in the city management.
Doug is right about the Agenda 21 mentality. Fascists. We know what's best.
Geo at December 16, 2012 at 09:21 summed it all up--if you go back and re-read his/her post, you will see exactly where the elitism is. And it is destroying the city.
Posted by: ernie | December 17, 2012 at 07:04 PM
Yea and they are just going to keep going until nothing is left downtown, but what is holding Guelph back? What is making Businesses turn tail and go to other cities?
Posted by: louis | December 17, 2012 at 09:52 PM
My rent is $1,900 a month, all inclusive except for telephone. Some think that that is high, but I think that it is reasonable. But the City's inclinations towards gentrification and higher rents downtown extend to businesses as well as residences. I can easily see a future with no more me, no more Dino's, no more Home Essentials etc. And what kind of pressure would a Starbucks exert on Planet Bean or the Cornerstone? None, I would hope, but I don't want to find out. They should just back off and let market economics take over, and not price mom-and-pop boutiques out of the picture.
Posted by: Dis-a-Ray Antiques | December 17, 2012 at 11:09 PM
You are absolutely right Ray. The very essence of small businesses like yours is what makes shopping downtown unique. I have never been in your store and been ignored. You always have the time to explain an item and share some of its history. Many other stores are the same with the actual owner giving his/her personal time to a single customer. Try finding that in a mall. City hall is going to turn downtown into a conglomerate of non personal money grabbing zealots and the atmosphere will change forever. I'm curious, how does your rent compare to say a store in the south end mall with comparable footage?
Posted by: rob b | December 18, 2012 at 03:59 PM
Dunno, but I heard that the Stone Road Mall , or maybe the Old Quebec St., or maybe both, take 10% of sales(!) Can anybody confirm or deny? And my rent at the old place was double, but square footage was roughly 6x. That's why I could sell used underwear to the homeless for 50c and still turn a profit. Now? They all go un-adorned. Sigh.
Posted by: Dis-a-Ray Antiques | December 18, 2012 at 04:42 PM
Ray, I'm not entirely sure about the % but I think you have it right.
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | December 18, 2012 at 05:16 PM
I think the point of the river park proposal is to increase the value of the property across the street (current defunct Taco Bell etc.) so as to encourage more development south of the Police Station, not one store crap plaza development and parking lots which is the scene "south of the tracks". I think it is a good long term plan, as this is the "gateway to downtown" and new, grander, development of the area would bring in far more taxes in the long run (off setting the cost of the park). I also agree with releasing the details early enough for existing business to find new accommodations (maybe in the new development that could happen across the street). The only potential fallout is the current building owners ability to keep full occupancy to the time the city buys it. This does suck, but I also think that the current plaza really sucks (it is so nasty looking) and this area would be better off as continuation of the existing park. That is my opinion as a Guelph resident, not as the building owner, who will have a very different opinion based on economic reasons!
Posted by: Lucky | December 20, 2012 at 04:59 PM
Lucky:
You should be on Council as you like to make "decisions" with no information.
How much would it cost the City to buy all that property? I have heard a figure in excess of $13 millions. Add to that the taxes paid on Commercial properties that are lost and you have an intersting "cost". I have asked some Councillors these same questions and THEY DO NOT KNOW! I have suggested that they ask staff for the information. I would like to get the infomation too, but I am tired of running into "stone" walls on Carden Street!
So while your pipe dream of improved buildings north of the parkway generating TONS of tax dollars, I suggest that you wake up and smell the coffee.
You either do not know or have simply forgotten that the Fountain Street parking lot was once the sighy of a gas generating plant, and that property is very heavily polluted. And that is why the City just paved over the pollution and made it into a parking lot. That from a City and Mayor who frequently claim that we are "Environmental Leaders"! Living proof again that BS baffles Brains". And that is not the only property in that area that has expensive environmental cleanup problems, for example the site of the former Guelph Soap Property.
As another example of "Environmental Leadership" consider the 15 or so acres of the former IMICO site which the City begrudgingly had to take ownership of, the City has done NOTHING to clean it up and turn it back to productive industrial/commercial/residential development.
This City has too many parks now and they do not get properly maintained and serviced. Do we really need more to ignore?
Posted by: Serious Cynic | December 20, 2012 at 09:27 PM
Cynic,
In fairness, the decision to create the Fountain Street parking lot was made many councils ago, so I don't think it's fair to hang it on any subsequent administration. I believe the Downtown Secondary Plan does envision some sort of development on that property, so in passing the DSP this council is actually trying to do something with the site.
The important thing to remember about the plan is that it represents a long-term vision for the core and that can come at short-term cost.
I believe opening up that riverfront property and making better use of the north side of Wellington Street is the correct long-term vision. We just have to be careful about how we get there.
Posted by: Scott Tracey | December 21, 2012 at 09:18 AM
Time to remind you all that the empty hole on Wyndham N is costing the taxpayer half a million for each year it remains empty, and we are now at $2 million and counting. All long-term vision comes with a huge monetary penalty, one that is usually hidden from the average joe.
Posted by: Dis-a-Ray Antiques | December 21, 2012 at 02:01 PM
It's disturbing to hear people suggesting that erasing existing developments to make way for today's long term vision is appropriate. It would be ok if we were discussing public property, but we are not. It is wrong to take someone's property just because you think you can make better use of it. With this logic, everyone's property is at risk. I think the Cutten Club is a wasting a great strip of prime land. Should we take that too? No - because that's not how we should behave.
Posted by: RM | December 21, 2012 at 02:19 PM
Scott:
Two maxims ro keep in mind:
1. Environmental cleanups will never be cheaper than they are today.
2, Taxes for the rest of your life will never be lower than they are today.
Granted the Councils of 40-50 years ago did not want to clean up the contaminated Gas property. Penny wise and Pound Foolish! (at least in my opinion). But to give them some credit, they did buy extra land for the Library to expand at sometime in the future. Future Library lovers in total oblivion rejected this option in order to build a 92,000 sq. ft. edifice, in a world where electronics and communications dictate smaller Libraries and located in a spot where access is very problematical!! More conveniently located branches make the Libraries more useful and a great deal less expensive. Ray keeps making the point about how dumb and expensive this land grab is for the taxpayers and I agree with him completely. It would be a better Council with him on it.
So on a number of agendas the Environalists and the "progressives" completely miss the boat. The secret to progress is to limit the number of challenges that you want to undertake, stay focused, and make progress.
If the City had that type of leadership in the past decade or two, then we would have the IMICO property being utilized and collecting taxes, same for the polluted Gas property, improved infrastructure instead of the huge "Capital Deficit" that the City keeps avoiding.
I did not ask you directly but do you have any idea as to the taxes that the City gets from the properties facing the River. I am going to continue to ask this question until a majority of Council demands the answer. How can Council make a good decision with out the cost and tax loss information? I would expect that you as a article writer would press for an answer.
I agree that plans are necessary, but the issues have to be DOABLE!
Posted by: Serious Cynic | December 21, 2012 at 05:48 PM
Scott:
I am assuming that your silence means that you have no idea of the following:
1. What the price is to purchase the river lands?
2. How much per year are the current taxes?
Also here are a few other questions to ponder:
3. How many of the operating businesses will simply close and go elsewhere?
4. How many jobs will be lost?
5. Why is the polluted downtown property on the West side of Gordon Street being developed?
6. Instaed of causing economic chaos, Why doesn't the Bloc on Council buy this property and the ugly yellow building and make parkland out of it? Or is this an item for another day?
I agree wih RM's thoughts (above) that we have to be carefull about council's purchase of private property, especially when that property is fully developed and paying lots of taxes.
The real agenda for this and future Councils is to get the residential share of Taxes down to 60% like a well run City should be. Now that is a clear and easily understood goal and one that a well-meaning Council can focus on.
Just a thought in passing - Yesterday I saw a very small funeral with noone in attendance. It was the funeral for the Smart Guelph Principles!! (Lest We Forget)
Oh my - I have stepped on the canine feces that permeates our Parks!!
Posted by: Serious Cynic | December 22, 2012 at 03:28 PM
The City should be providing the services it is required to by the Municipal Act, period.
Half the positions at City Hall could be eliminated right now and there would be no change to the quality of life of 95% of the people who live in this city.
Check that.
95% of the people in this city would see an improvement in their quality of life if half the staff got their walking papers because they'd be able to keep more of the money they earn.
Not only that the improvement would be measurable as in how much did your taxes decrease?
Posted by: geo | December 23, 2012 at 04:25 PM
Geo, can't agree with you more. And they have added more of those now.
Posted by: Natwork | December 23, 2012 at 04:38 PM
Thank you Natwork.
I think RM's comment (Dec 21 2:19pm) sums it all up perfectly.
Posted by: geo | December 23, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Serious
Regarding the Pilot trial of the garbage bins. It was run by the city, and Janet Laird told me at a Ward 4 meeting I attended recently,that she had all the paperwork with the results of the trial stating that the bins were inefficient and not cost effective. Not my personal opinion, but the result of the city's trial. I asked her for a copy of the trial results and stats, she said by all means...I contacted Cam Guthrie and he passed along my request...guess what.. no response form her. I have been told that I probably will never get to see what I, a tax-paying citizen, asked for. I do know that the MOE would not allow the city to reopen Dunlop Waste plant unless Guelph switched to the bins. No bins---no dump!! I also confronted J Laird about this, and finally, after I asked her for a yes or no answer several times she did say this was true.
Off topic.....
It is so frustrating to see the fancy skating rink/water feature and yet try to walk along Quebec Street without keeping your eyes down. Sidewalks are so terribly uneven that I am just waiting for a Senior to fall, break a hip, and sue the city. They're broken sidewalks, fix 'em!!
Posted by: sifad | December 23, 2012 at 10:04 PM
sifad:
Thanks for your info on the "Pilot" and the fact that you were/are unable to see the results. I suggest that you contact your Ward Councillors and demand thet they get a copy and let you read it. If you are successfull let me know thru this Blog.
I am surprised that Ms Laird said that the results of the trial were bad and yet the City pursued the wasted $50 million exercise. If this info is true - Who else can you blame but the Mayor and her supporters. In fact if you can get the report I would suspect that all members of Council who supported the decision to follow this environmental direction are in deep Do-Do and at serious risk.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a ggod night.
Posted by: Serious Cynic | December 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Yeah, Lets demand pilot report on garbage bins made public. We need change at the top of the city hall.
Posted by: Natwork | December 24, 2012 at 07:05 AM
IF the city isn't providing services or adhering to the municipal act, report the city, we can't wait idly because sooner or later
A - Someone is going to get injured on city owned property
B - Someone is going to complain about something not being done
or C - We are going to have another case of someone dieing on city property.
Posted by: l.m. | December 25, 2012 at 09:56 PM
l.m. - How exactly is the City not adhering to the municipal act? I'm assuming you've read as much of it as Rob Ford did. (and 'dieing' isn't a word) The ignorance on this blog is starting to outweigh the entertainment.
Posted by: done | December 28, 2012 at 03:01 AM
that's the best you have, done? that "dieing" isn't a word?
in this case, it is indeed the wrong word, but you are incorrect ... "dieing" is in fact a real word. look it up.
yes, the ignorance around here is very entertaining. especially the self-righteous sort. happy new year.
Posted by: D C | December 28, 2012 at 08:38 AM