At the Nov. 9 meeting of City Council, Councillor Steve Garrison moved that the Kingston Community Memorial Health and Recreation Centre grounds be retained for "… use as public community facilities."
At that meeting that there was confusion as to whether the motion was suggesting retaining the Memorial Centre Building, or merely the site. Mr. Garrison had gone to some trouble to make clear that the site only was under discussion, but various members of council seemed to misread the motion. After Ed Smith, who had indicated he would support the motion, voted against it, the motion was referred, by a vote 7-6, to two committees for more review.
The next day I wrote my councillor, George Sutherland, with copies to other councillors, as follows:
Hello George,
I am a Glenburnie resident who also owns a house in the Williamsville area downtown. I was at the meeting last night and was dismayed and disappointed to see you vote against the motion to retain the Memorial Centre Site for public use. You claimed to be unclear as to whether the motion precluded renovations to the building. The motion very clearly stated that it was meant merely to retain "the Memorial Centre Site... (for) use as public community facilities."
This motion did nothing to restrict the development of the property for public use. It only sought to prevent selling the site. This is the issue. Are you for or against keeping the site in public hands? Once you open the door to sale for private development, you can't close it. You are, perhaps unintentionally, playing right into the hands of the developers, whose whole motive is profit.
I ask you to reconsider the issue, recognize it for what it is -i.e. a proposal to privatize public land - and vote to keep the site public.
Sincerely,
John Thomas
George Sutherland did not reply, but Floyd Patterson did:
Hello Mr. Thomas: having been copied in your remarks to Councillor Sutherland, I am passing you my own brief response: It's irresponsible for the Council to rush to action in property matters in response to a motion no matter how well intentioned the motion is: I happen to know that most of Council have taken very seriously the petitions and the public statements that oppose selling Memorial Centre lands; the right course of action is to accept your Council taking these opinions under advisement, and to stay on course in searching for ways to replace our outdated arena facilities and to build an LVEC; two different committees are working on these; facts are being gathered; at the point where reports from these committees reach Council, then the Council will be able to reject the report, modify the report and accept it, or approve the report in principle; I don't doubt that the Council will never lose sight of the importance of public ownership at the Memorial Centre site nor of the involvement of private investments where it can really help our citizens; but the prudent way is to be patient and let them do their work.
Best Regards,
Floyd Patterson,
Councillor, Sydenham District.
I wrote back:
Dear Mr. Patterson,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the fact that the committees work long hours with the best of intentions and it is easy to criticize their efforts. With all due respect, however, these matters are too important to leave to the experts.
Unfortunately, the idea of an LVEC has become predicated on the destruction of the very thing it was meant to preserve -the Memorial Centre. If you remember the chronology, the mayor began with a plan to renovate the Memorial Centre. It was his own premature and unilateral initiative to move from that to the idea of an LVEC. And his own self appointed Task Force then made then LVEC contingent on selling the M-Centre.
Now he has established a second committee to investigate potential sites for multipad arenas. Both committees have now been given a mandate to recommend whether or not to sell off the M-Centre site.
By their vote to reject keeping the M-Centre Site public, some members of council have already, in effect, cast their vote and made the report of these committees a foregone and obvious conclusion: City must retain the option of selling off the M-Centre site. Furthermore, as Jana Mills pointed out, one of the members of the Community Centre Project Steering Committee,
Deputy Mayor Foster sits on both committees and is in clear conflict of interest.In politics, perception is reality, and the perception is that this process is a farce and a charade, a smoke screen to give the impression of democratic participation.
It is not too late, however, for councillors to change their minds. Because of the mayor, the building of the LVEC and destruction of the M-Centre have become intrinsically linked.
Because of the mayor, saving the M-Centre Site for public use means rejecting the idea of LVEC in its present form. Surely it is better to stop and re-think our priorities, however, than to
proceed in the irresponsible and reckless direction the mayor is now headed. I urge you and others to respond to the voice of the public, and when this matter comes again before council, make it plain that the importance of preserving our public site is paramount. Vote to keep the M-Centre Site in public hands.Best,
John Thomas