In earlier simpler times, issues were presented to Council, debated on their merits and decided accordingly. In these upgraded post-democratic times however, in the world view of Councillor Mihevc & his confederates, it is apparently unecessary to actually debate an issue & air various viewpoints before rendering a profound decision.
On Nov 29,2002 the Wychwood Barns issue was to be scrutinised by City Council. The project with its benefits & deficiencies was to suffer an unbiased critical inquiry from City Council. All well and good. The Mihevc/Artscape development proponents could state their case. The neighbourhood opponents could state theirs. Council could then bring logic to bear, and make a reasoned decision.
On the evening & morning in question, there were any number of stirring speeches about the wishes of a neighbourhood & polling thereof to establish a just & fair settlement... ....of a restaurant patio application on Harbord St in Ms Chow's ward.
It might then have followed in a subsequent debate on the Barns, that the same theory would hold true when local residents challenged extraordinary private sector uses of a public park.
It was not to be. In what was a clearly irregular move, when the procedural window opened, Mr Mihevc called the question on his Wychwood Barns/Artscape motion. After some befuddled back & forth, the City Clerk confirmed that the manoevre was permissible. There were two votes: the first on whether to call the question. 20-8. The second on Mihevc's Park design 20-10. Thus, the project surmounted a considerable hurdle at City Council.
What was missing however was an actual debate. In effect Council decided, without being apprised of the facts on the other side of the issue. Council was privy to Mihevc's sunny assessment. Council also had before it, staff reports that contained many red flags amidst its obligatory aquiescence to the Artscape project. Questions were about to be raised by those on Council with critical faculties, but.......
Well after midnight, after sixteen hours at their seats, Councillors clearly had no appetite for another four hours of debate. The meeting was about to close.
Mr Mihevc had a stark choice.
Either be consistent with the principles of fairness, openness, transparency & ethics that he espouses at every sanctimonious turn & conclude that the issue is not "Time Critical" as Mr Halstead asserts and defer the issue until Council's next meeting so all views in the disparate community can be heard.
Or, concede that principles are nothing but lofty rhetoric and (now that a quarter of Council has left) put the issue to a direct party line vote.
He chose the latter.
Debate was quashed by raw procedural, if open & transparent power.
The issue is by no means settled. It features the same things that afflict the City with MFP, only on a much smaller scale. There's conflict of interest. There's playing fast & loose with city assets. There's flying a boondoggle under the radar which Mr Mihevc has sucessfully done at 3 City Council meetings. The most recent was the first where critical scrutiny might potentially have been applied.
Little wonder that he called the question & stifled debate.
If democracy is in fact operative, this issue needs revisiting & well gosh, the protagonists need a lateral career shift.
TO BE CONTINUED.........
For the record, these Councillors (a plurality of Council) voted for the 4 Barn Development:
Altobello; Augimeri; Bussin; Chow; Di Giorgio; Disero; Duguid; Flint; Hall; Johnston; Jones; Lindsay-Luby; McConnell; Mihevc; Miller; Moscoe; Nunziata; Pantalone; Rae; Silva
By way of additional information:
Councillors Miller & Pantalone are on Artscape's Board
EDCT Staffer/pointperson, Ms Martin is listed as advisor to Artscape
EDTC honcho Ms Davies is said to have had nothing whatever to do with the creation of Artscape
 |
confirmed the worst fears of the neighbourhood: that the 100% park for which they voted had faded into the mists of process. The room was filled to overflowing; split more or less evenly between supporters/ringers of Artscape's proposal, and local residents who stand to enjoy the collateral damage of the development first hand.
|
Though it was claimed to be a first draft subject to community feedback, shovelling through the blizzard of jargon suggested something more entrenched. We had: "factory of ideas" "specialty use space" "collaborative partnerships" "interesting synergies" "visionary distinctive presence" "connecting with the neighbourhood" & "engaging the community" with an "office cluster community" where the "barns are a resource for the park" & the "anchor tenant in the performance space" & "the arts cluster" would "provide arts services to local residents" (Hello Artscape! I know it's 3am but my wall needs a snappy objet asap) There was the "architectural rebirth" that one might expect from an architect's pitch & the equally not unexpected "green initiatives" from Stop & Foodshare.
The Councillor's closing comments included the usual "birthing process" & the hoary "community of communities" He then invited members of the collective to "make space in your vision for my vision" & then segued into something about "groupthink" The overriding sense from the Councillor was that this project is unassailable and any opposition would be an admission of moral turpitude.
There is profound opposition from the neighbourhood which stands to suffer noise, traffic & parking pressures, not to mention a deep sense of betrayal since the Councillor promised 100% park but is delivering a development. Out of a two & a half hour meeting, this position, characterised by the Councillor as "a different point of view" was allotted 5 minutes.
The crowded room was then a recipient of an hour and a half of undiluted infomercial/filibuster from Artscape proponents. Much of this was spent in a darkened room while the architect tried to hypnotise the audience with a laser pointer swaying to & fro across projections of his swell drawing & tourist slides. When it came time for the factory of ideas to the line up at the microphone and have questions go unanswered, it was noteworthy that the Councillor twice tried to stifle the expression of the aforementioned "different point of view" Very inclusive. Very connected with the neighbourhood.
The most edifying comment of the evening came from a young male who suggested that those who do not like it, (the proposal) move to Mississauga.
When a City Planner got to speak after the pitch, he pointed out a jewel: the actual boundaries of the Park v development in this proposal. The ambiguous plans released to date show no allowance for parking & roads servicing the various commercial (if "non-profit") enterprises. Food banks, grocery distributors and art studios need loading and unloading facilities. 80% Park indeed.
What is planned by the developers here is a cultural megaplex that cannot help but impact adversely on the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of traffic, parking, noise & ambience.
.By the way, the oprative area will yield the city $1 CDN per year from Artscape which raises a question: can the community raise $2 CDN per year if the space stays 100% Park?
|
HILLCREST RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION ENDORSES 100% PARK ...(OPTION 4)
The Hillcrest Residents' Association annual meeting is usually a tranquil affair featuring a command performance of the Alderman supporting all local concerns and the assembled citizens applauding the Alderman's assiduous attentions. The Association's meeting on Feb 18th 2002 was however a clear departure from form.
The small Wychwood Library room filled to overflowing, a buzz was in the air, the Councillor's assistant arrived early & huddled with the Chair. Why?
The Wychwood Car Barns 100% Park issue.
The President of the association: Jim Wiswell shambled onto the floor at 6:45 & after introductory comments about the agenda and more than a few invited guests, introduced Councillor Joe Mihevc who was to take five minutes to summarise the usual business of the ward before addressing the Main Attraction: The Wychwood Car Barns Park.
Thirty minutes later Messers Mihevc & Wiswell were still serving & volleying matters of no significance. Every minute spent discussing the absence of anything to report on a property across from Casa Loma was a minute they did not have to discuss the top-of-mind Park issue, and a minute closer to the 9pm deadline.
So with 45 minutes left, Mr Mihevc continued to work the clock by launching into his familiar bedtime story about the Car Barns Park.
Once upon a time the silly peasants thought a park contained grass, benches, trees, playing fields & maybe a fountain. Then came the big bad ogre from the province who took all our money and any chance of having a park before the next ice age. Enter the good Sorceror of York who concocted a wizardly plan to invite Prince & Princess Artscape to save the Park by building a carnival on 40% of it and calling it 100% Park. And everyone lived happily ever after.
Until someone had the good sense to break the filibuster with a pointed question about the proposal's impact on the immediate neighbourhood which of course led to more questions about this happy fable. Mr Wiswell, the Chair then suddenly lost all ability to recognise questioners known to be skeptical of the bedtime story and accepted a series of questions from participants in the fable.
Specifically, he knew there was a hard question incoming from the front row from a person whose hand had been raised from the outset. This was something also known to the ever so inclusive Councillor sitting no more than 10 feet away. With only five minutes left, the Chair must have thought that a gesture to the front row was safe, but alas the person he chose, yielded the floor to the woman whose question had been ignored from the outset. Hence a motion was presented, displayed here, the intention of which was to return the issue to the neighbourhood where it belongs. Naturally the motion was immediately seconded. Allegedly the Councillor was very red at this point of the democratic proceedings. Mr Wiswell in highly un-Chairlike fashion continued to skate and returned to questions from the Artscape tier.
Fortunately, one acquainted with the rules of order interjected to point out that a seconded motion was on the floor. Debate & a vote must therefore follow. The clock was running, but the Wiswell-Mihevc roadshow no longer had the puck. An amendment was then proposed from the floor deferring part 1 (return to 100% Park) for six months & accepting parts 2 & 3 which mandate community involvement. Mr Wiswell called for a show of hands and declared the amended motion carried, but again one familiar with the rules interjected to demand a count.
In the recorded vote of all present,The Hillcrest Residents Association endorsed returning the Car Barns Park & the implementation reports to its Oct 2000 100% Park status.
The people in the impact zone have spoken. There's always talk about support for initiatives being a mile wide & a millimetre thick. Then again there's support that's neighbourhood wide & bedrock deep.
Also, in ruminating on this development, the elected representative characterised "community space" & "quiet enjoyment of a neighbourhood" as mutually exclusive when it comes to a neighbourhood park. Those whose brains have not exploded might want to seek clarification from the representative for the ward.