For the public, there will be no more meetings on the
Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) until October. It’s a welcome break.
As I have stated in Slicing and dicing and SWAP: Planning or politics and other previous blogs, I consider this issue
to be a really critical one for the city, economically, environmentally,
socially and aesthetically, but the direction of the current council seems to
be 180 degrees from exercising responsibility in these areas. Rather than heeding the
recommendations of the planners and consultants to whom they have paid good
money for their expertise, they prefer to listen to the landowners and
developers who contributed to their campaigns to give them guidance.
This was abundantly clear at the Planning and Environment
Committee (PEC) last month when, having put fantasy before fact with respect to
city growth prospects, committee members turned their attention to the SWAP
report, the last one before going back out into the community for comment and
then to a public participation meeting before PEC in October.
You may recall that the last time council considered this
matter it had demanded more commercial along the Wonderland Road South
corridor, and staff had complied. Despite the consultant’s report that
suggested that something just under 1 million square feet of commercial would
serve this area for the foreseeable future, staff had extended the commercial
designation along that corridor so that now 3.2 million square feet would be
available!
Still, it wasn’t enough for the committee.
Henderson spoke first. He considers this to be his
territory, the Lambeth area, although he lives far west of the city.
He didn’t think there should be any residential designation
along there; nobody would want to live along a busy road. This is near Hully
Gully, one of his corporate donors.
The mayor agreed. He was more interested in the
Exeter-Wonderland-Wharncliffe triangle where SmartCentres wants to locate. That
should surely be commercial, he believed.
For its part, SmartCentres seems to believe it’s a done
deal. Its website proclaims that it has the following location:
SmartCentres London Southwest is a 620,000 square foot centre located
at Exeter Road and Wonderland Road, in the Southwest quadrant of London. A
large department store will anchor this centre with the first phase scheduled
for Summer 2009, with mid-box, in line and pad opportunities available. http://www.smartcentres.com/site_summary/loadflash.html
Fontana was also interested in knowing about what was
happening with the industrial land around the 401/402 interchanges that would
be materializing with the largesse of the provincial government.
The report on the industrial lands would be forthcoming in
August, planning director John Fleming reminded him. And that land is outside
the urban growth boundary, not really a part of the SWAP. He pointed out that a lot of commercial designations had
been added to the proposal, but it was not enough for Fontana. He wanted more.
So did Harold Usher. A few days before the meeting, someone
from the community, “not even a developer,” he claimed defensively, had taken
him for a ride around there. It was no place for residential, across the street
from Hully Gully and the London Transit Commission, especially when York
Developments, one of his donors, had a shovel-ready project in the form of a
Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse for that location on the west side of
Wonderland.
Only Judy Bryant had reservations. Going from 995,000 square
feet to over 3 million sounded like a pretty big jump to her. What would be the
impact on other areas of the city?
But Henderson disagreed. Developers were telling him that we
needed more commercial and industrial lands to create jobs.
Joe Swan came to the rescue. He had given this a lot of
thought. Rather than assigning land uses to various areas, why not let the
market decide? It could be a trade-off for better design. Let the developer
come up with what he want to build, but hold him to a high standard of design.
It could be an “enterprise zone”. “Be creative,” he urged. The plan before him
felt like it was based on 1980’s principles.
It was a direct insult to Fleming who defended the plan.
They were doing things differently; this was very progressive planning with an
emphasis on allowing for pedestrians. It included many innovative approaches.
He hadn’t intended to insult the planning department, Swan
said, without apology or retraction.
Fontana was becoming impatient. He wanted to get on with it.
And he wanted everything along the corridor commercial, right to the 401. But
an enterprise zone where anything goes—commercial, industrial, institutional,
residential— might do.
Before this could be voted on, committee chair Bud Polhill
wanted to ensure that concerns of his backer, Shmuel Farhi, were also
represented.
“Farhi is disappointed,” he said. “Do we have plans to do the
Bradley extension sooner?”
At whose cost? And for whose benefit? That’s what London
residents would like to know.
The outcome was never in doubt. Only Judy Bryant opposed the
motion.
So that was what came before the council a couple of weeks
later. There, the arguments were the same, except that a few more voices got
into the mix. It helped that Ali Soufan of York Developments had sent along a
last minute letter for the edification of council and to provide talking point
and speaking notes on his behalf.
Chief among them was Paul VanMeerbergen. He liked the
recommendation but wanted a change in the definition of the enterprise designation.
He thought residential and institutional uses should be taken out of the mix
entirely. He moved an amendment to this effect.
It was what Soufan wanted to ensure preference would be
given to his proposal and somebody with a residential plan didn’t beat him to
the punch.
VanMeerbergen read from Soufan’s letter: development charges
bringing in $9M, building permit fees for $461,000, property taxes of $3M per
year, 1,277 jobs, annual income of $28M per year circulating in the local
economy. “These are real numbers!” he gushed. He wasn’t talking about a
grandiose government-sponsored, taxpayer-financed plan here; it was WIN, WIN,
WIN all the way!
Why would anyone want to look a gift horse in the mouth?
However, despite support from the mayor, Henderson, Denise Brown
and Usher, the amendment ultimately lost.
Still, not everyone was thrilled with the notion of an enterprise
designation, even if it allowed for the inclusion of institutional and residential development.
In her years of sitting on planning, even chairing it, she had
never heard of an enterprise zone, Nancy Branscombe noted. She couldn’t find it
in the Planning Act. Did they have any idea of what the implications might be?
Fleming pointed out that it had not been staff’s
recommendation; the idea had come from the PEC. He didn’t know what its uses
might be. A patchwork form of development could sterilize the development
of adjacent uses and not having any order, was unlikely to lead to a positive
outcome. Any use on any scale, he didn’t think this was right. It would
certainly impact downtown.
Branscombe thought it was ridiculous. Putting what you want
wherever you want wasn’t planning. They were getting into a minefield; it would
blow up in their faces.
“I can’t believe a planning committee would support a ‘no
holds barred’ plan,” Branscombe despaired. She wondered why so much work and
money had gone into preparing the SWAP, only to be ignored by the committee.
Swan rose to defend his proposal. The enterprise designation
had been his idea, he acknowledged. It came out of feedback from the business
community.
And then, he had been at ReThink London, the public
engagement initiative led by the planning department to get the community’s
input into the review of the city’s official plan. Swan had talked to a lot of people at ReThink London and
they were really concerned about how we do business in London. We have to
rethink that. We have to be more enterprising, the old way was way too
prescriptive.
“Not all developer wear black hats,” he concluded.
I was surprised by his rendition of ReThink London. I had
been there too, only a few days earlier, at various round tables hearing people
discuss their hopes and dreams for London. They had talked about neighbourhoods, about
walkability and connectivity, about a city where no one would be homeless, about a place where
small business could thrive and residents would have easy access to local food. I
heard no desire for enterprise zones to hold more big box stores. Could we
have been at completely different meetings?
Joni Baechler had attended the earlier
committee meeting but, not being a member, she had not voted on the issue, nor
had she spoken. She had two issues of concern.
First was the way in which the
recommendation was framed. She want to ensure that the “enterprise designation”
was not a separate matter, that it would be something to be considered along with the SWAP proposal as it
went forward to the stakeholders a few days hence and the public participation
meeting in the fall. Seeing the possibility of an ally, Swan was only too happy
to agree.
Secondly, she wanted it known
that planning director John Fleming is one of the most well-respected planners
in the province and the country; for cutting edge planning, “We have the guy,”
she averred.
With that, and a long-winded
defense of the York Development proposal from Harold Usher, the matter was put
to a vote and was supported 14-1, with Judy Bryant as the only holdout. It
seems that the sceptics were kept in line by the reassurance that this was only
a designation “to be considered” as part of what was to go forward to the
stakeholders meeting the following day.
I went to that meeting too, at the
Lambeth Community Centre. It was well-attended by developers and community
members alike. Unfortunately, most of the time was spent on presenting the
parts of the plan that were not in contention. The “enterprise designation” was
left to the end, almost 9 o’clock, after many of the members of the community
had departed to collect their children and put them to bed.
They may be in for a rude
surprise when the matter goes back to PEC for the public participation meeting
in October.
They may be faced with an
enterprise zone, all along Wonderland Road South from the proposed Bradley Avenue
extension to Exeter Road where anything goes. It is bound to have significant
impact on downtown revitalization and independent businesses in Lambeth. It
will lead to more store closings and deserted malls.
ReThink London it is not. It is
simply more of the same “in the [big] box” thinking that informed Hyde Park and
other development areas.
I haven’t given up on ReThink London;
it’s the only option for citizen's to have some input into the future of their city.
But in the words of Paul Hubert,
we have great plans but crappy implementation.
Let’s hope SWAP is not one of
them.
9 comments:
This is not a pretty picture you paint, Gina. Not only the implementation, but the outlook as well, is crappy.
What can be done to slow down the mayor's gang and their development mania?
It is really striking that Council is not really involved in a debate about development, because the development debate is really about whose pacts with developers and land owners will be honored. So this isn't a debate about 'laissez faire' vs 'rational' development, but 'corrupted' vs 'uncorruptable'. It is so disturbing that some members of City Council don't recognize how sleazy all of this looks, and don't take seriously the message it sends to the citizens of London. It's shameful, really.
Everyone involved in this SWAP and other planning of developments that entail rezoning have forgotten about what this whole wide world went to war for twice...individual residential property rights...how dare anyone of you or them take a residential address off the map and rezone it as commercial or industrial or anything other then a residential address. Workers need a place to live, either within walking distance or with reliable public transit.
In the beginning of the zoning process this land was designating as family farmland. It started out with 100 acre plots, and the number of residents permitted to live on the plot and use the address as their personal residence was systematically reduced as the plots were separated, and ultimately annexed. This isn't crown land that's never been inhabited before. You planners are essentially taking away the residential birthright of our founding families and the employment that supported rural farm life. To give the new generation jobs that aren't accessible without reliable transportation is putting them in danger IMO. How exactly do any of you expect the employees of this proposed industrial/commercial hub to get to work and back home again when there's no reasonably affordable residential dwelling spaces or public transit nearby?
I've come across the term enterprise zone before, so I searched the Net for definition: a designated zone in a depressed area, esp an inner urban area, where firms are given tax concessions and various planning restrictions are lifted, in order to attract new industry and business to the area: first introduced in Britain in 1981. Hmmm. Is this really what is being discussed? This is not what I heard being promoted by those in attendance at ReThink London.
Rockinon, according to Councillor Swan, enterprise zone is what people at ReThink London told him. The question is, has he been at any of the events to talk to people? I haven't seen him, have you?
further too the previous (older)blog where enterprise zones were mentioned...it seems to me back at the turn of the millennium the province regulated enterprising entrepreneurs because the province was heading toward economic depression.
Entrepreneurs are income earners who work from home and don't require a business license or certification. It's what used to be known as "the cottage industry".
During the many years that I was searching for home to call my own in this city I came across several places where there was a condition that the residence only be used for a principal residence, no home based business allowed, you needed to prove you had a legitimate source of income from an outside source in order to qualify for the right to dwell in the living space. Some subdivisions, condominium complexes and gated communities are zoned that way.
The whole situation is deplorable. I'm pretty sure that none of the Councillors are educated in urban planning, yet they continue to change recommendations made by qualified staff. This "enterprise zone" should be renamed for what it really is -- an "FFA" or "Free For All" zone.
Let's hope for all of our sakes that the trend of indecisiveness for Council continues so that nothing harmful will happen in the southwest area (or the City for that matter) until a new gang is welcomed to the table.
What was misleading about both the developer and the councillor in coming up with development charge figures is that the # will vary with the form of development. Is $9 M good? Hard to tell without a comparison to another form of development. And another form of development requires different infrastructure which could change the cost of the infrastructure. The Councillor may also still not understand that development charges are not revenue to help pay for the operating costs of the city but rather money that offsets the growth related costs of new infrastructure in the capital budget. And it is a number many of the development industry want to push off growth and on to the tax base.
Post a Comment