To the Mayor and Members of Council
City of Kingston

1 City Council should not commit to the Inner Harbour location for the proposed LVEC in view of the extensive expression of concern by many citizens. The divisiveness of the debate concerning location is the result of a failure to have first examined the comparative merits of alternative locations. There can be no hope of reasonable community acceptance of any location until all locations having reasonable apparent merit have been considered for their economic, environmental, social, transportation, and financial consequences as well as their potential for future expansion and adaptations.

Without a documented comparative approach to selecting a location for a LVEC, any further focusing on the the Inner Harbour location continues to be founded on a house of cards.. Studies that have been attempts to validate an unsubstantiated locational choice are highly suspect. The result has been an increasingly concerned citizenry who have become steadily more angry and unnecessarily divided. Without any semblance of a reasonably developed community acceptance of a location the City should not commit to proceeding at this time.

2 The task to do something about the deficient Memorial Centre should not have been turned into a proposal to support the narrow interests of downtown business. The Mayor's Task Force was not an appropriate body to address the problems and undertake the planning of the downtown. There has been a failure to examine the LVEC's impact on the historic, water related and open space considerations that make the downtown a unique and attractive place to do business and live. A proper planning process would seek to accommodate all dimensions of the downtown in a balanced manner as a place to do business, visit and to live.

3 The claim of economic benefits for the downtown has not been supported by any credible evidence. Other communities with downtown LVECs are cited as examples but there is little evidence of economic benefit apart from intensified activity on game nights in nearby bars and restaurants. Independent studies of LVEC type facilities indicate that there are limited net economic benefits and that benefits are usually overstated by proponents. No credible evidence, apart from anecdotal comment, has been presented about the benefits to other businesses from other recently build LVEC's in other communities.

4 A LVEC on the Inner Harbour may have unintended consequences. Downtown Kingston is not typical of downtowns. It's rather unique success can be attributed to its rich historic physical heritage, traditional human scale, mix of small businesses, busy street life and its location on the waterfront. It is considered as highly valued space by the citizens of Kingston. A LVEC located downtown could put the downtown's current success at risk. Much of the LVEC traffic, parking and crowds are likely to be viewed overall as a detraction and a nuisance rather than supporting downtown business.. Normally traffic and parking is provided away from sensitive historic and significant places. Nothing is known about the extent to which increased traffic will result in increased downtown business activity.

Some communities without the strengths of downtown Kingston have located LVECs in their central areas. That may be appropriate in dead or dying centres where there is little of value to be displaced or negatively affected. Downtown Kingston is not dead and dying and a LVEC may weaken its unique strengths and be counterproductive. Kingston should play to its strengths and not put at risk its commercially viable downtown which is so rich in street life, history and ambiance and a great place to live. Most communities would envy the state of downtown Kingston. It may be better for the City to support a range of smaller diversified improvements and attractions to the downtown that are more in keeping with the scale of downtown. The Grand Theatre and Market Square are good examples.

5 Use of waterfront land for a non-water related use requires justification. Locating the LVEC on the waterfront is not inconsistent with developing the waterfront for its maximum enjoyment and as the land base for water related uses. Waterfront land should be used for purposes that depend upon or compliment use of the waterfront. Displacing two active waterfront related commercial enterprises and entrenching vehicle parking on the waterfront needs to be specifically justified. Potential waterfront open space should not be lost without an examination of the open space needs of the area and the provision of public access to the water of the Inner Harbour. The Inner Harbour is a vastly under used environmental resource which requires open space access and suitable land based facilities to realize its potential.

6 LVEC on the Inner Harbour raises concerns of compatibility. The LVEC in addition to being a non waterfront use raises concerns of incompatibility with adjacent residential and major institutional residential uses. Incompatible concerns that should be carefully weighed include, a) its visual impact of height, mass, bulk lot coverage and locational setting and, b) the intensity of the activity that would generate operating factors including nuisance impacts on the surrounding area such as traffic, parking, noise and crowds. Theses impacts have not been documented. A policy supporting the creation, maintenance and preservation of good neighbourhoods requires that negative impacts on existing neighbourhoods be recognized, understood and minimized.

7 Changes in land use policies required to accommodate a proposed LVEC on the Inner Harbour require justification. Current planning policy and controls for the Inner Harbour date from 1985 when the City adopted Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments for the area. The amendments followed a planning study for the Inner Harbour which provided a well considered planning basis for the transition of the Inner Harbour from industrial to mainly medium density residential uses. These amendments have been consistently applied and followed for 20 years spanning the terms of six city councils. They have been relied upon by those who have moved into newly built condominiums and upgraded existing homes in the area.

Residents of the Inner Harbour have been encouraged to live downtown and by doing so support the downtown. Many moved into the area when the area was marked with abandoned and declining industrial sites. The 1985 planning policies and controls provided reasonable assurance of future land use protection. They ought not to be departed from unless the Inner Harbour location is demonstrated to be the best location in the City for a LVEC and adequate mitigating measures have been adopted. Without adequate justification a change in planning policies and controls to permit a LVEC on the Inner Harbour would seriously weaken confidence in the planning process.

8 Conclusion. A proposal for a major community facility like a LVEC requires a carefully designed decision making process. The City failed to foresee the spectrum of interests and values that the proposal for a LVEC has revealed. The fact finding process for the proposed LVEC has been more in the nature of a justification and not seen as objective. The focus on a single solution driven by a major interest group has produced maximum contentiousness.

A good decision making process recognizes that much can be learned through a fair and open process that respects the interests and participation of all. The political culture of Kingston has suffered as a result of the LVEC experience. It needs to be put right so that any proposed LVEC might be generally viewed as a matter of community effort and a reflection of a cohesive community rather than a bitter one.

Kingston should begin by undertaking a comparative examination of all locations having reasonable apparent merit as a location for a LVEC By doing so it would level the playing field and weigh and balance the many interests and values of the community. No further steps should be taken to proceed with the Inner Harbour location until that is done.

Thank you for your attention to this matter
Yours truly,

Robert Mackenzie
Kingston ON