Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235
Your detailed reply is appreciated. I'm not sure that we actually differ on a lot of these principles, it's just that we disagree on our interpretation of how things played out in this case.
|
I am inclined to agree with you that we are in general agreement. It's clear that you have been trying to constructively engage on the transportation issues, and I applaud your persistence. I wish I was able to set aside my animosity, but I'm afraid that nothing I have seen in the behaviour of the City or OSMUG give me any reason to think that time I would dedicate to trying to constructively engage with the ongoing process, would be time well-spent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235
In terms of mandate, my experience is that for any major position that it takes, the GCA seeks a mandate from its constituents. And where it doesn't get a clear mandate (on bike lanes for instance), it doesn't take a position. In this case, my interpretation is that those in opposition didn't like the mandate that they got (i.e. significant support in favour of the stadium and development), and chose to ignore it, while claiming to speak for the "community". I think that proponents knew that to be the case, and it undermined their message, which got increasingly more one-sided and further from a factual groundig as time went by.
|
I'm wondering where and when you saw this expression of significant support for the scheme? I cannot say that I saw this. I suppose without scientific opinion polling, ultimately all claims of a definitive mandate are unclear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235
In terms of consultations, for what it's worth, the display board model seems to be the approach that is most in favour across Ontario these days. It's not that the City was trying to avoid real consultation in this particular case, they were just following their usual model. While I think they should also do a larger question and answer in addition to the boards, I kind of doubt that would have been particularly productive with the green-shirt brigade in attendance.
|
Given the size, cost and importance of this project, despite what the standard model of consultation is in Ottawa or elsewhere in Ontario, IMHO it would have been appropriate to have a real grassroots consultation to uncover what Ottawa residents thought should happen at Lansdowne, instead of just a debate pitting the well-funded developers' scheme against the unfocused, uneasy resistance.
Halifax used such
a participatory model in the development of their new main library branch.
A model that might herald a new middle way to balance the concerns of citizens, cities and developers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235
Clive Doucet's video was actually one of the most effective tactics employed against the project. Unfortunately he and others had done so much to rachet up the hysteria by that point that his credibility wasn't what it could have been.
|
Again, probably supports by assertion that because this was a political battle, never a winnable legal battle -- just as the prosecution of Larry O.B. didn't work because there was no smoking gun, despite the fact that many people clearly believed that he had done wrong -- and so FoL should have spent its money on P.R. In that context, Clive's video would have been an effective salvo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235
No question there were personal attacks against John Martin. All of the personal attacks on both sides were ugly and added nothing to the debate. However, John was a special case. He certainly took deliberate steps to put himself in the public eye and present himself as a legitimate alternative to OSEG. As such, I think the public had a right to scrutinize his claims - particularly with respect to his expertise (of which he had none) and financial wherewithal (zero), which were very relevant to his argument. Likewise, when he launched his very public court action, the public had a right to know that this was a serial litigant who regularly used the courts to force a position, was never successful, and didn't pay his costs. Once all of that was uncovered, it certainly added clarity to the picture.
|
Certainly by taking on the scheme he put himself in the public eye. Maybe because he likes the spotlight.
However, I think he was genuine. In first speaking with him outside the door of the "consultation" at Tom Brown Arena, I came to realize that he started agitating because he thought that somebody needed to articulate the rhetorical counter-argument to the developers' scheme. It was a creative way to engage the process. But clearly not one that anybody involved with running the process appreciated.
Because there had never been a visioning process to determine what options (not what developers' plans, or what stadium schemes) were possible, he sought to point out that there were other ways that Lansdowne could be redeveloped, that might or might not include a stadium.
Given that he did not have experience in property development or urban planning, I think that he was able to gradually evolve a viable-looking counter-proposal for what could be done at Lansdowne.
Sure, he didn't have the financing, but then again OSMUG is putting hardly any of their own money into the stadium, park or parking. That's being paid for upfront by the City's taxpayers. OSMUG's putting their money into building their private condos, shopping centre and office building. But the question is, were there other ways to redevelop Lansdowne that didn't require those things, or those things to the degree that the current scheme includes them, that could have achieved the same results as far as a stadium, or park or other public amenities? Probably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235
While I understand the feeling that the City made its bed, and they should live with the mess, this is still your neighbourhood and your city, and resident engagement is the best (and only) way to keep the Glebe's status as an incredible place to live. The failure of Lansdowne is counterproductive to those goals. That is reason enough to try to help work through the challenges that a major change can bring.
|
So far as I can see, the City and developers have throughout the process persisted in refusing to provide any opportunities for meaningful engagement by concerned residents, and so, in general those that have been concerned, have withdrawn into resigned disdain.
I have, in my small, bothersome way, sought to engage constructively with Lansdowne recently, by calling on the City to open up the design process of the childrens' playground that will be part of the urban park. I am interested because my kids would use the playground, and it might be nice if the parents and kids most likely to be using it, could have a hand in its development. Also, I have pointed out that this could be a small olive branch to offer to neighbouring residents, to try to help to heal the wounds from the Lansdowne battle and help to encourage people to re-engage. However, the City's reaction has been to say that it's all been decided already. Butt out.
Prev
Linear Mode
