Is Kingston Growing Smart?

[posting]

Is Kingston growing smart?

- a Kingston Electors Overview

Urban sprawl
New development consuming land faster than rate of population growth
Low density development
Development that separates people from their jobs and shopping
Development that requires cars for travel between zonesSmart growth principles
Keep distinct boundary between urban and rural lands, preserve green space and environmentally sensitive lands
Make full use of existing urban land and infrastructure, direct all urban development toward existing communities and ensure all development is compact
Mix land uses (homes, stores, offices, services)
Ensure integrated planning linking regions, transportation, etc.
Provide transportation choices with focus on public transit
Create neighbourhoods that invite walking and cycling
Foster distinctive communities with strong sense of place [where do we have this other than Sydenham Ward and some rural villages?]
Make development decisions fair, predictable, cost effectiveWhy smart growth
Early development (before 1960) typically intensive; development after 1960 occupies four times the area as early development
Costs of service delivery to low density development way too high
Sprawl not transit-friendly
Costs of providing services to suburban low density development exceeds property tax revenue (proven in a number of studies)More reasons for smart growth
“Greenfield” development is easy, infill takes more thought
We all want our own huge piece of property with inexpensive municipal services and a subway at our doorstepKingston’s land use planning framework
Provincial policy
City of Kingston land use rules (official plan and zoning)Provincial policy framework/rules, the Provincial Policy Statement

• Provincial policy statement tenets
Confine urban growth to urban areas
Settlement areas remain the focus of growth and regeneration
New development only in designated growth areas adjacent to existing built-up areas
Phasing policies to ensure orderly development
Strong policy framework for controlling expansion of settlement areas

Emphasize intensification/redevelopment
Establish minimum targets for affordable housing
Municipalities must “be consistent with” these tenets (old PPS said municipalities must simply “have regard to”• Other legislative influences
Development Charges Act
§ Needs revision so that development charges could be used to support infill and brownfield development through development charge relief

§ Only permits recovery of capital costs in selected areas, and does not support any recovery of ongoing operational costs
Kingston land use rules

• Official plan is the policy framework
Currently working with three separate official plans• Zoning bylaws are the detailed rules
Currently working with three separate sets of zoning bylawsKingston land use “rulers”

• City council and council committees

• Committee of Adjustment for “minor variances” and severances

• City administration serving in support of council

• CAO quoted as saying…

· Infill takes away green space

· Urban growth strategy planning philosophy is obsolete and too dependent on employment statistics of manufacturing jobs, we need to realize that retail is replacing industrial

· We need a strategy that lets the city grow where people [and developers] want to be

• Policy planning group establishes the official plans/zoning bylaws, professional urban planners

• Development approvals group, also professional urban planners, deals with land use change transactions

• Input from developers
· Kim Donovan says “although we need to offer choice, and suburban development is one such option, it is inefficient. Our challenge is to have more infill development in areas with existing infrastructure.”

· John Armitage says west Kingston doesn’t have enough buildable land, and people who buy in west Kingston would not buy east of the causeway. He seeks a 20 year supply of approved development (using a high population growth forecast, projecting demand for 414 single family and semi-detached per year)

· Peter Splinter says the market isn’t calling for intensive development, and he seeks tax incentives, design guidelines, and a developer-support committee to encourage infill and good design
• Input from interested citizens
• Intervention from Ontario Municipal Board if appeal

Kingston official plan today
Currently guided by three official plans from amalgamated municipalities
Consistent pressure to ignore aspects of plan in order to appear “business friendly” [examples along gateways into city]
Foundation studies prepared for new official plan
Such as urban growth strategy, natural heritage strategy, transportation plan, agricultural strategy
Such as city owned industrial land development strategy, waterfront strategy (not yet finished)
City policy planners currently doing public consultation (three recent workshops plus open house)Urban growth strategy – the “heart” of smart growth

• Core concepts for first UGS report
Manage infrastructure improvements/expansions and avoid premature land development
Kingston’s needs for growth are modest, and 2002 urban growth boundary yields enough land for development to 2026
Kingston must accommodate increased residential density, mixed land use, and additional employment within existing committed development area
Mixed use corridor from harbour to Midland Avenue should be established in official plan• History
Core study done by consultant (J.L. Richard) in 2002 (approved in principle by council)
Draft official plan amendments covering the strategy’s proposals brought to Planning Committee summer 2005
Developers complained (e.g., Mile Square Block) about the urban growth boundary
Official plan amendments revised to allow development outside committed infrastructure policy area if comprehensive plan brought forward and developer agrees to pay for installation of hard (sewer/water) and soft (roads, police, fire services) costs; this passed in late 2005• Pressures

Interest of landowners in suburban fringe
Attitude of city administration to look “business friendly” [does that mean that anything goes?]
Population growth


Planners acknowledge they used too high a forecast several years ago
Dr. Gordon quotes current growth as 0.4% per year
Developers typically quote 2% per year or higher and also base projections on past history heavily influenced by the “boomer” generationToday’s status

• Official plan amendments incorporated into existing three OPs late 2005 reflecting revisions allowing “front ending” of development beyond 2002 urban growth boundary (in essence, passing to developers the responsibility for revisions to the city’s growth strategy, rather than leaving this responsibility with the professional planners)

• New official plan in work

Maps to date reflect changes made in 2005
Secondary plan areas include Mile Square Block, lands just north of 401 around Division St, while committed infrastructure boundary runs from Collins Creek up to 401 and back down to the St. Lawrence River along the eastern margins of Greenwood Park, slicing through the base.• Public consultation workshops held in November/December 2006
• Public comment again invited in February 2007

Call to action

• Talk with your councillor about urban growth boundaries and the need for smart growth rather than sprawl

• Talk to your member of parliament about need to change the Development Charges Act to recover the full costs of greenfield services and permit reduced charges in infill areas, as well as potentially tighten the generous terms of “front ending” agreements (note it looks possible for a city to have multiple development charges bylaws, so perhaps we should consider one for the greenfield areas and another for lands within the committed infrastructure area boundary)

Resources

http://www.sustainable.org/ for a weekly Smart Growth newsletter

http://www.cityofkingston.ca (http://www.cityofkingston.ca/) for official plan updates (search, they aren’t always easy to find by following the site’s links)


-- Outline for discussion at Green Drinks Kingston, December 12, 2006. Discussion co-ordinated by Chris Cannon.

[Peter Walker]

Interesting comments, but on many of your points I beg to differ. On others, I agree with your philosophy, but recognize that councillors face political pressure from voters to "'abandon", or at least "compromise", smart growth principles in many specific cases.

My general philosophy is that I am much more comfortable with the principles of "smart growth" than with the suburban sprawl that seemed to predominate in the last half of the 20th century. However, over 30+ years of active participation in the construction industry and the local political process opens my eyes to some of the political pressures.

1.) Don't blame developers. Developers can only offer products that sell -- blame the customer if you have to blame anybody.

2.) "Foster distinctive communities with strong sense of place [where do we have this other than Sydenham Ward and some rural villages?] --
I suggest Barriefield Village, Pittsburgh Twsp south of 401, Pittsburgh Twsp north of 401 (you should have seen the PRA municipal all-candidates meeting attendance -- standing room only, out into the hallways)

On a smaller scale -- Treasure Island
When we lived there (don't know about now) -- Point Pleasant

3.) "Emphasize intensification/redevelopment"

Unfortunately, a lot of time is spent at planning committee listening to people who live in a particular neighbourhood complain about proposed higher densities. Everybody seems to be in favour of urban intensification, as long as it does not happen within 1000' of their homes. Examples -- the redevelopment of the old "Crock and Block / Keg" restaurant site on mid-town Princess Street. It was shot down on the basis of not enough parking. Sorry -- it was a great location. People could live there without owning cars. It would have led to a little more parking on the street -- but have you been to Greenwich Village lately? In real "neighbourhoods", street parking spots are used -- it is more efficient than tying up lots of space for off-street parking.

Another example would be Greenwood Park. I was at a planning committee meeting where the developer was trying to get minimum lot size reduced from the original 50'-60' size. The neighbours with 60' lots were there objecting that it would lower their property values if smaller lots were allowed, and that it would "change" the character of the neighbourhood.

(My house on Willingdon Avenue was on a 40' x 90' lot -- it definitely did not suffer from "low property value" due to the smaller lot -- my house before that was on West Street -- the lot was so small I cut it by setting the string a little longer on the weed eater -- that house did not suffer from "low property value" due to its small lot).

Have sympathy for planning staff and the politicians. If they allow increased urban intensification, they invariably are accused by existing neighbourhood residents of "failing to listen" and "damaging existing neighbourhoods " (or, to use "Smart Growth terms, damaging an existing community's "sense of place"). If they do not allow urban intensfication, they can be accused of not adhering to "smart growth". They have tough choices to make, and are often unfairly criticized.

4.) "Development Charges Act
§ Needs revision so that development charges could be used to support infill and brownfield development through development charge relief"No revisions are necessary to allow this. When a municipality passes a Development Charges By-Law (which they must do every 5 years -- since DCs automatically "expire" (and revert to $0.00) 5 years after a DC by-law is passed), it is permitted to exempt (fully or partially) types of development (e.g.: industrial) and/or development areas (e.g. -- brownfield areas, downtown areas, etc). What cannot be done -- specific developments cannot be exempted on an ad hoc basis. Given my 30+ years of experience in this industry, I agree with this feature of the Development Charges Act. I believe it provides a safeguard against potential abuse.

5.) "CAO quoted as saying… Infill takes away green space..."

Exactly the point of those opposing converting part of the Memorial Centre property into residential development. Personally, I believe a significant part (but not all) of the Memorial Centre property should be converted to medium or high density residential. It would breathe more life into that area, and such a conversion is in keeping with "Smart Growth" -- however, I recognize that I may be in a minority on that one. As a minimum, I will have very vocal opposition to my point of view. The opposition to the intensification will definitely be more vocal that the supporters -- even if it is a minority.

6.) "We need a strategy that lets the city grow where people [and developers] want to be"

It is politically popular to bash developers, but remember -- they only want to be there if people want to be there. Developers do not create markets; they answer to markets. It is a high-risk industry -- a lot of developers who "mis-read" the markets go out-of-business (often bankrupt) in every recession. Local examples include Kingswood Homes/Highgate Park in the 70's, the developers of the Landmark in the 80's, Kinalea and some downtown developers in the 90's. Internationally, Olympia and York are one the highest profile firms to go under. Like all high-risk industries, given the high negative risk there has to be a high positive potential for the participant -- otherwise nobody would do it and the economy would stagnate.

To summarize: "planners cannot force people to buy houses where planners wish them to buy houses."

7.) "Official plan amendments revised to allow development outside committed infrastructure policy area if comprehensive plan brought forward and developer agrees to pay for installation of hard (sewer/water) and soft (roads, police, fire services) costs; this passed in late 2005"

A beneficiary of this revision is the area immediately to the North of Hwy 401 at Division Street. Reading the preliminary reports and background data to the Urban Growth Study that was circulated at the time, it can be seen that the reason this area was not given a higher "priority" in the order of proposed development was the cost of getting services under Highway 401. If not for that impediment, it would likely have been much higher in the priority for development since it has fantastic regional access (Hwy 401) and can provide much-needed commercial space for residents of the north end and "Countryside" district.

The current redevelopment of Hwy 401 (at provincial expence, not municipal expense) allows an opportunity, should a developer wish to "front-end" the development costs, to move this area ahead -- providing the official plan allows for such an exception.

This is a logical "exception clause" to put in an official plan -- no matter how hard a planning consultant tries, that consultant cannot predict with certainty all the "outside factors" (such as an "MTO-provided window to get services under 401 inexpensively) that can influence ideal development patterns.

This may well be the next area of logical development, but if the window is missed to take advantage of the HWY 401 redevelopment, the community may be forced to accept "sub-optimal" development further down the line due to this missed opportunity.

8.) Developers typically quote 2% per year or higher (population growth rates) and also base projections on past history heavily influenced by the “boomer” generation.

I suggest you are creating a false impression of "developers" with this statement. I was at all of the meetings of council-appointed committee to prepare the current Development Charges By-Law, and I assure you that 100% of the developer-attendees at these meetings urged a much lower growth projection. I will not argue with you if you say "a few" developers quote such a high projection, simply because there are a lot of developers out there and they are all "independent". I will assure you that, in all of the meetings I attended regarding the Urban Growth Study, the Transportation Master Plan, and The Development Charges By-law, 100% of the development industry representatives who spoke of growth rates quoted much lower growth rates.

9.) Talk to your member of parliament about need to change the Development Charges Act to recover the full costs of greenfield services and permit reduced charges in infill areas, as well as potentially tighten the generous terms of “front ending” agreements (note it looks possible for a city to have multiple development charges bylaws, so perhaps we should consider one for the greenfield areas and another for lands within the committed infrastructure area boundary)

Please note that new homeowners (not developers -- development charges are costs that get added on to the cost of homes) already subsidize capital costs for existing property owners. For example -- new homeowners pay 100% of the cost of all local roads and local water and sewer lines to service their new lots. These roads and services are installed by the developer, at the developer's expense, and added to the cost of the lot. Hence, they are added to the cost of the new home -- the new home-owner pays for them through increased mortgage payments.

These services typically last 40 years or so before needing replacement or major capital repair. The new homeowner, in the meantime, pays property taxes and utility rates at the same level as existing homeowners. Old infrastructure (serving existing homeowners) is repaired and replaced from tax and rate revenue. Hence, the new homeowner is paying 100% of the capital cost oh his/her local roads/utilities (through his/her mortgage payments), plus paying part of the cost of the repair/replacement of existing homeowners local roads and utilities. If it were not for new growth, existing homeowners would have to pay higher taxes and utility rates. This is one of the principle reasons that, pre-amalgamation, property taxes were lower in the "higher growth" suburban municipalities, and higher in the "old city".

Similarly, under the existing Development Charges Act and "Impost Fees" (the funding mechanism Kingston uses for water and sewer, under the Municipal Act) new growth pays for 100% of the "new growth component" on arterial roads, trunk sewers, water and wastewater plant expansions, et cetera. It also helps pay for repairs and replacement to those portions of the arterial roads, trunk sewers, et cetera that serve existing home-owners. Hence, new growth pays all of its own costs, plus subsidizes existing property owners.

Similar to the case for local roads and local water/sewer, under the existing Development Charges Act, new growth pays for both the expansion of libraries, arenas, fire services, police services, etc to serve its needs. It also is "double charged" in that it also contributes to the costs to replace such existing infrastructure "consumed" by existing property owners. In the case of these services, the Development Charges Act does provide for a 10% reduction in the "new growth" cost assessment. However, in the case of a "slow growing" municipality such as Kingston with a lot of older facilities (Memorial Center, Wally Elmer, etc), mathmatically this 10% reduction only partially offsets the "double charging".

As already pointed out, the current Development Charges Act does allow for reductions for infill areas. I am not sure what you mean by "generous terms" of front-ending agreements. Typically, the developer wishing to enter into a front-ending agreement has to pay 100% of the cost of the services up-front, and is only "reimbursed" as other growth catches up -- and gets no interest on the investment. In what way it this "generous"?

A municipality can have multiple Development Charges By-laws -- but why? Essentially everything you are suggesting is possible through one by-law -- and given the cost and extensive nature of the background studies required every 5 years for every by-law, to have more than one by-law would entail much higher costs in staff time and in consultant fees -- not to mention increased numbers of windows for OMB appeals and the resulting risk of even further costs to the municipality.

[BornAndRaised]

9.) Talk to your member of parliament about need to change the Development Charges Act to recover the full costs of greenfield services and permit reduced charges in infill areas, as well as potentially tighten the generous terms of “front ending” agreements (note it looks possible for a city to have multiple development charges bylaws, so perhaps we should consider one for the greenfield areas and another for lands within the committed infrastructure area boundary)

Please note that new homeowners (not developers -- development charges are costs that get added on to the cost of homes) already subsidize capital costs for existing property owners. For example -- new homeowners pay 100% of the cost of all local roads and local water and sewer lines to service their new lots. These roads and services are installed by the developer, at the developer's expense, and added to the cost of the lot. Hence, they are added to the cost of the new home -- the new home-owner pays for them through increased mortgage payments.

These services typically last 40 years or so before needing replacement or major capital repair. The new homeowner, in the meantime, pays property taxes and utility rates at the same level as existing homeowners. Old infrastructure (serving existing homeowners) is repaired and replaced from tax and rate revenue. Hence, the new homeowner is paying 100% of the capital cost oh his/her local roads/utilities (through his/her mortgage payments), plus paying part of the cost of the repair/replacement of existing homeowners local roads and utilities. If it were not for new growth, existing homeowners would have to pay higher taxes and utility rates. This is one of the principle reasons that, pre-amalgamation, property taxes were lower in the "higher growth" suburban municipalities, and higher in the "old city".

Similarly, under the existing Development Charges Act and "Impost Fees" (the funding mechanism Kingston uses for water and sewer, under the Municipal Act) new growth pays for 100% of the "new growth component" on arterial roads, trunk sewers, water and wastewater plant expansions, et cetera. It also helps pay for repairs and replacement to those portions of the arterial roads, trunk sewers, et cetera that serve existing home-owners. Hence, new growth pays all of its own costs, plus subsidizes existing property owners.

Similar to the case for local roads and local water/sewer, under the existing Development Charges Act, new growth pays for both the expansion of libraries, arenas, fire services, police services, etc to serve its needs. It also is "double charged" in that it also contributes to the costs to replace such existing infrastructure "consumed" by existing property owners. In the case of these services, the Development Charges Act does provide for a 10% reduction in the "new growth" cost assessment. However, in the case of a "slow growing" municipality such as Kingston with a lot of older facilities (Memorial Center, Wally Elmer, etc), mathmatically this 10% reduction only partially offsets the "double charging".

As already pointed out, the current Development Charges Act does allow for reductions for infill areas. I am not sure what you mean by "generous terms" of front-ending agreements. Typically, the developer wishing to enter into a front-ending agreement has to pay 100% of the cost of the services up-front, and is only "reimbursed" as other growth catches up -- and gets no interest on the investment. In what way it this "generous"?


The way I see the development charges is that yes everyone should pay for the cost of the infrastructure that they need and it should be included in the cost of their home. People who live in the country do not get their wells or septic systems installed using tax dollars and if they live in more remote areas they may have to pay to have the roads re-graded every so often.
The portion of our taxes that we all pay as homeowners or renters which is attributable to the maintenance of this infrastructure is used to maintain and repair the infrastructures that need attention (Repair or Replacement), including their own. Some of the repairs may be on common things like the water towers, pumping stations, service mains etc that are required by all of us so that the person buying the new home plus all of the rest of us should have to pay for these.

Do you only use the roads that your development company built into the cost of the homes? Do you refrain from using the public washrooms in a place outside the development area of your home? When the service main along your street is repaired do you get the bill for it in the mail?

In conclusion, I don't see any double charging going on and the 10% reduction should be seen as an incentive like it was most likely meant to be.

[Lydia]

HUm????????????????? You mean we are paying taxes for infrastructure in this city of Kingston?????

Can anyone PLEASE tell me the reason people get sewage in their homes because it comes in throught the sewage drains instead of somewhere else.

Can anyone please tell me why upgrading of sewage lines, etc are not done throught the city of Kingston????

All I ever heard in the past 7 years is nothing has been done. Of course, It doesn't affect me YET. However, I do feel extremely sorry for the people who have been affected and the city choosing not to cover their expenses and forcing many people to move out of their homes.

I agree Bornand Raised, we should all pay for this and I only WISH THE TAXES were used for infrastrucuters. Hopefully they are not just lining someone's pockets in form of wages or commisions.

[Peter Walker]

A few things:
a.) In Kingston, Development Charges/Impost Fees were originally instituted over 30 years ago at the request of developers. They realized that Kingston Township was going to run out of capacity, and that it was unreasonable for existing property owners to pay for the capacity needed by new property owners.

b.) The reason for the "double charging" is that there is a "mathmatical flaw" in the methodology used in the background studies to calculate the "existing level of service".

Consider the case with no development charges. Consider just one example -- fire trucks. Existing property owners, through their property taxes, have paid for all of the fire trucks. New property owners move in. They automatically get the benefit of the existing fire trucks -- which they did not pay for.

Furthermore, if another fire truck is necessary due to the growth, all property owners (new and existing) have to pay for it. Hence, the existing property owners paid not only for their fire trucks, but also were "double charged" in that they helped pay for the new fire trucks.
to serve new growth.

The solution has been to implement development charges.

However, the methodology that has been used to calculate the level of DCs leads to the reverse situation -- new growth is being "double charged". Consider the identical situation to the above, except that new growth is charged the full cost of purchasing a brand new vehicle to service it. However, if the existing vehicle is old, and has to be replaced almost immediately after the new homeowner moves in, then the new owner is in the situation of having paid 100% of the cost of the fire truck to service his/her needs, plus having to contribute to the cost of the fire truck to service the existing taxpayer.

If the methodology was revised such that, instead of basing the calculation of "existing level of service" on the replacement cost of the existing assets, the existing level of service was calculated on the basis of the "replacement cost of the existing asset times the percentage of useable lifespan remaining in the asset", then new development would truly be paying for 100% of the municipal assets it needs and existing development would be paying for 100% of the asset it needs.

Of course, new development would use some of the existing facilities and assets, just as existing development would use some of the new facilties and assets -- however, everything would come out equal in the wash.

The fire truck example used is a simplification for illustration purposes. However, using calculous an irrefutable mathematical proof can be developed to show that, under the existing methodology used in DC background studies, new growth is both paying 100% of the costs to service it plus subsidizing the taxes for existing property owners.

What is important to realize is that, in general, the development industry has not objected to this "double taxation of new growth" as long as it is not carried to the extreme. There was one OMB appeal about 5 years ago in Russel Township that was related to this issue. The OMB found validity to the complaints, and sent the municipality and the appellants back to the table to work out a more equitable solution.

In general the development industry recognizes that politicians prefer to levy "hidden" taxes (DCs are "hidden" taxes -- the homeowners still pay them -- they just pay them through mortgage payments because their new house costs more, rather than through their municipal property tax bill), than to levy taxes that everybody can see.

As long as the "hidden taxes" are not too excessive, the development industry goes along with them because, while they may be paid by the developers, they are simply tacked on to the price of a house and passed through to the taxpayer in that way.

c.) A comment is often heard that "growth does not result in lower taxes -- taxes always go up". However, if service levels remain the same, taxes do not necessarily go up. The difficulty is that, as municipalities get larger, they tend to answer more and more requests from citizens for increased services. I dare say response time to fire calls, access to municipal swimming pools and arenas, summer day camps, percentage of municipal roads that are paved, etc, are all greater in the City of Kingston than in North Frontenac Township.

All other things being equal, municipalities with no growth have more difficulty financing infrastructure maintenance. Look no further than our own municipality "pre-amalgamation". The townships tended to have lower taxes and better infrastructure -- it was the city (a slow/no growth municipality) that desperately needed to amalgamate with the townships (high growth municipalities -- especially Kingston Township) in order to gain access to the resources to maintain its infrastructure.

[BornAndRaised]

I agree Lydia. Those people who have their homes backing up with sewage during heavy rainfalls need to band together and lobby the city to take action against the poor sewer infrastructure which combines water runoff from roads with sewage from houses. If these systems were separate then we wouldn't need to treat near as much volume as we do currently, since rainwater does not need to be treated.

Furthermore it would be less likely that we would ever dump raw sewage into the waterways again. I hardly think that we are dumping raw sewage into Lake Ontario due to everyone flushing their toilet at the same time. It only seems to happen during heavy rainfalls. The extra big storage facilities for the treatment plants are just bandaids on the wound except the wound won't heal because the wound is caused by the underlying problem of adding rainwater which doesn't need to be treated to sewage which does need to be treated.

We should consider ourselves extremely fortunate that the MOE has not slapped heavy fines upon the city for contaminating our Lake. Some may say that the overflowing water is cleaner than the current lake water (LOL) but being realistic who will be paying those fines when the Ministry thinks that enough is enough?

[Dogma]

These services typically last 40 years or so before needing replacement or major capital repair. The new homeowner, in the meantime, pays property taxes and utility rates at the same level as existing homeowners. Old infrastructure (serving existing homeowners) is repaired and replaced from tax and rate revenue. Hence, the new homeowner is paying 100% of the capital cost oh his/her local roads/utilities (through his/her mortgage payments), plus paying part of the cost of the repair/replacement of existing homeowners local roads and utilities. If it were not for new growth, existing homeowners would have to pay higher taxes and utility rates. This is one of the principle reasons that, pre-amalgamation, property taxes were lower in the "higher growth" suburban municipalities, and higher in the "old city".




In Kingston, Development Charges/Impost Fees were originally instituted over 30 years ago at the request of developers. They realized that Kingston Township was going to run out of capacity, and that it was unreasonable for existing property owners to pay for the capacity needed by new property owners.
I think your low taxation (pre-amalgamation) bias suggests that people should not have to pay for both new infastructure and to maintain old infastructure. ( i.e New getting old, or old getting older.)

You forget though about speaking to economic and social trends that have increased development not only in "the City" but to neighbouring suburbs. And the fact that "rural" and suburban type properties-infastructure is subsidied by Government. (Not necessary just through municipal taxes.) And the fact is that the associated service costs for "rural" and suburban property owners is much higher than "City properties".

Both because of lack of population / changing capacity, along with the added budget expense for new roads, bridges, sewer, water and hydro lines - for ones the ("dream" of living in the boonies) Why we (the City properities) subsidies urban sprawl instead of making it to expensive or inconvienient for "rural type" homes to be built is the issue.

Along with the traditional rural "home" technologies:

i.e ***** rural sewer, electrical and water service: : such as septic tank, water wells and 60 amp services.

Infastructure upgrades costs money (taxes) because of the amenities people in the rural and City's have adopted over the past 30 years. Such as Microwaves, larger appliances, washer and dryers, dishwashers and a real lack of conservation to control or minimize the increasing demand and bills associated with such rural and City home "necessities".

I would also suggest the "rural" areas (its populations) have decreased. e.g for work, i.e farms for example are not working farms anymore, peoples trends - movement to larger centers especially in North America, and the historical trend to move around more than Europeans.

Along with the aging community, it has forced people to move closer to services such as hospitals, (which increase hospital expansion needs) thus taxes to pay for the aging community.along with costs for doctors and transportation services.

Indeed; the "spin" was that amalgamation would save money/taxes because of the "duplication" of services, administration and so on. Infact; we found out because of issues such as Walkerton, and old post war construction that our infastructure was in some cases over 50 years old+. This post war infastructure situation we have now and to many years of a low taxed society, industry and businesses closing after 40 years, local non contributing institutional taxation, aging infastructure, with little or no maintenance, the 10 times fold of automobile(s), increased population in Cities and a total lack of conservation and a burgening population demands...have left us the legacy of higher taxation.

All this costs money. Or taxes. But, still Canada is one of the lowest taxed "developed" nations in the world.

For you to complain that the rural communities should continue to have lower taxes as they have always ENJOYED is frankly arrogant and simple of statement.

[Paula Murray]

What about the children ... schools and bussing should be mentioned while discussing urban sprawl.

[Lydia]

There is going to be a lot of hot issues on Schools and busing soon. I agree with your statement Paula.

[Dogma]

I agree you agree with Paula!

[Dogma]

Park planning adviser concerned by proposal; Midway mention could skew talks: Cannon

Ryan Bergen
Local news - Monday, May 07, 2007 @ 00:00

A Lake Ontario Park planning adviser is wondering why some city politicians want to alter the recommendations of a group that spent five months developing the planning principles for the waterfront site.

Jim Cannon, of the Portsmouth Village Community Association, said that a proposal by city recreation committee member Steve Garrison to put a "small-scale amusement park" at Lake Ontario Park runs counter to the advisory group's recommendations and the conclusions of the park's revitalization study.

"It was the clear intention that the recommendation would deliberately avoid mentioning specific types of facilities," said Cannon.

Cannon said a variety of ideas were discussed during consultations to propose a general framework for the next stage of planning.

"To privilege any type of facility is in a sense being unfair to the total process," said Cannon.

He is concerned that a specific mention of an amusement park will skew future planning talks about the park.

Garrison said his amendment is designed to ensure that the possibility of an amusement park is considered. It's a vital part of the park's legacy, Garrison said, and should be examined.

"I wanted to make sure it didn't get lost," he said. "I don't have any fear that any of those [other recommendations] won't be considered."

Garrison said the study included in the report did not accurately represent the interests of local families. He said parents with young children would support an amusement park, but are often too busy to participate in such consultations.

He said "informal conversations" with residents who want to have rides at the park compelled him to add the specific focus to the vision statement.

Cannon challenged the methods Garrison used to conclude that rides should be a priority for planners.

A survey conducted as a part of the park's revitalization study last year had 323 respondents. The results showed a "midway [commercial operation similar to the previous one]" at the bottom of the list of preferred park elements.

The survey results were presented in a report to the arts, recreation and community policies committee. The report stated that "it is clear that the park's main focus should be as a natural retreat in an urban environment."

According to city staffer Mark Fluhrer, the survey respondents were not just people who live near the park. "We had a response from a wide variety of postal codes," he said.

Garrison applauded the work of city staff and advisory group members, but said the sample size was too small to be truly representative.

"That's why we send these reports to committee."

Cannon is concerned that an amusement park does not fit into the grander vision for a natural park. He argued that a small-scale amusement park would not be an attraction, and the costs would outweigh the benefits.

He also suggested that the relentless pestering of children for just one more ride might keep some parents from coming back.

The rides did not lose money, according to Dan Wannemacher, who operated midway rides at the park until 2004.

He said his decision to leave the park was not financially motivated and he believes people would come back to the park to ride the rides.

In addition to the small-scale amusement park, the committee also endorsed the use of the area for cultural activities, camping facilities and "the enjoyment of the natural environment" as planning priorities.

The amended planning principles will go before city council May 15. rbergen@thewhig.com (rbergen@thewhig.com)

[Lydia]

Hum, isn't it interesting that Steve's Comments actually works to bring LIGHT to a small group of people who have not BOTHERED to inform the PEOPLE as to exactly what they were planning. Seems to be that this silence is similiar to all the other projects that are done.

I would be more than happy to LEARN more about what the committee DID consider. Let's see, The camp ground was eliminated, the midway was eliminated, the Dog show was eliminated, Steve's idea of an amusement park for CHILDREN seems to be something NOT CONSIDERED.

What is being considered??? As far as I am concerned Dogma, Each and Every Committeee should have their minutes of their meetings posted somewhere. Do you know where the PUBLIC could find these minutes??

[Dogma]

I agree with you Lydia it almost seems that they are hiding something of the future of this park. I would almost say its more sinister because they will not accept any ideas nor reveal what plans they actually have!

Although I am also unsure of the severity of such judgements at such an early stage of events.


It was the clear intention that the recommendation would deliberately avoid mentioning specific types of facilities," said Cannon.

Cannon said a variety of ideas were discussed during consultations to propose a general framework for the next stage of planning.

"To privilege any type of facility is in a sense being unfair to the total process," said Cannon.

He is concerned that a specific mention of an amusement park will skew future planning talks about the park.

[Dogma]

Wind farms harm water table
Letters to the Editor - Monday, May 28, 2007 Updated @ 6:45:25 AM

It has come to our attention that the installation of industrial wind turbines is again raising its ugly blade at Queen's Park.

We are aware that some financially strapped farmers on Amherst Island have been convinced by wind-turbine speculators to sign away the rights to their land. It would, however, be a far better investment on the part of the Ontario government to support our farmers with a comprehensive agriculture policy, rather than to allow speculators to ruin their land. In any case, please note that the actions of certain landowners do not represent the majority of Amherst Island's population.

Many residents of Amherst Island are concerned with the following: the noise levels produced by the turbines; electrical run-off and its medical repercussions to humans and livestock; the neurological problems caused by the flicker effect, and, the general destruction of the water table.

Medical professionals recommend an absolute minimum set-back of one kilometre between a wind turbine and any residence. Yet, the developers who are courting Amherst Island landowners, are proposing set-backs of less than half the recommended distance.

As a family with four young children, living directly adjacent to one of the proposed wind turbine sites, we are extremely concerned about our health and welfare. Furthermore, due to the decline in property values that a wind farm would cause, we could not afford to relocate our family to a safer environment.

One negative environmental effect that will be created almost immediately is the destruction of the water table. Our water well is dug at 15 feet, whereas the foundation of an industrial wind tower need to be anchored at a depth of 30 feet. It does not take a geologist to figure out that our currently plentiful water supply would disappear with the construction of a tower 500 metres from our home.

Who will pay to provide us with water? Who will be responsible for the maintenance and repairs of these colossal towers?

The fact is, nobody. Germany's experiment with wind power is proof.

The German government, which has a 20-year head start over Canada with regard to environmental issues and green policies, has abandoned the wind-turbine experiment as impractical and financially unsustainable.

It is our hope that Leona Dombrowsky and her counterparts at Queen's Park will reconsider support for this flawed energy bill until such time as a thorough environmental and health assessment has been done.

Esthetics are the least of our concerns.

Eva Little

Stella

[Lydia]

Hum, I wonder how damaged was done to Demark due to their windmils??? I guess the country thought it was a disaster as well.

[Dogma]

They pumped water...conserving land....not for North American but creating dependable sustainable energy.

[Lydia]

YES KINGSTON IS GETTING SMARTER BY HAVING THE WALKATON FOR WORLD RECORDS. WAY TO GO

HERE IS THE SITE WHERE YOU CAN GET A MAP AS TO WHERE TO START.

http://www.downtownkingston.ca/pdf/downtown_walk_map.pdf

[Dogma]

Walkathon? Is that some sort of endless dog walk? Or people walk?

I am not following the thread link now????

Again, windmill "farms" not irrigation windmills are impractical and very expensive. i.e wasteful / expensive infastructure TAX monies!

But, are they politcally correct? Of course they are for North Americans!

Germany's getting rid of them - and they practically invented & build them all!

Back to the thread............


I think your low taxation (pre-amalgamation) bias suggests that people should not have to pay for both new infastructure and to maintain old infastructure. ( i.e New getting old, or old getting older.)

You forget though about speaking to economic and social trends that have increased development not only in "the City" but to neighbouring suburbs. And the fact that "rural" and suburban type properties-infastructure is subsidied by Government. (Not necessary just through municipal taxes.) And the fact is that the associated service costs for "rural" and suburban property owners is much higher than "City properties".

Both because of lack of population / changing capacity, along with the added budget expense for new roads, bridges, sewer, water and hydro lines - for ones that ("dream" of living in the boonies)

Thus we (the City properities) subsidies urban sprawl - instead of making it to expensive or inconvienient for "rural type" homes to be built is the issue.

The "American Dream" or the "right" of ownership, and its associated (property size) ego related bragging rights
have all contributed to "urban/rural sprawl". The urban legend that we all deserve and require a "spread of our own"! i.e 2000 - 4000 sq ft house - for 2-3 people is the result. Along with the resource bills associated.

Adding to this "post war trend" the traditional rural "home" technologies: have also added to "sprawl".

i.e ***** rural sewer, electrical and water service: : such as septic tank, water wells and 60 amp services.

Infastructure upgrades costs money (taxes) because of the amenities people in the rural and City's have adopted over the past 30 years. Such as Microwaves, larger appliances, washer and dryers, dishwashers and a real lack of conservation to control or minimize the increasing demand and bills associated with such rural and City home "necessities".

[Lydia]

The thread i placed the link is was used because I didn't see any better place to put it. lol lol.

Kingston will have a chance to be in the Guinass World Book of Records for the MOST PEOPLE WALKING A ONE KM WALK AT THE SAME TIME 12:30

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WWW.DOWNTOWNKINGSTON.CA AND LOOK UNDER THE SUBHEADING "SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER" you will find more information on it.

Way to go Down town Kingston.

by the way I am sure there will be a few DOGS going and I don't mean the fur type Dogs either lol lol.

[Dogma]

The doggier the better!

P.S - I hear they compensate by being great cooks?

GRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat!

[4jeg]

I just posted a lecture on smart growth that was hosted at UC Berkeley. You can find it here (http://www.kingstonelectors.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=2080).

[Dogma]

Thanks for the U.S version of lectures.

Do you have any thoughts of your own on this subject?

[4jeg]

Well, I haven't read the entirety of this thread, but I do have some thoughts regarding Smart Growth in general. This is obviously a must, and it pains me to drive by Toronto and see the sprawl that is occurring. This is Ontario's chance to replicate great cities and instead we're building townhouses. London is a prime example of this; never have I been witness to this extent to sprawl.

To some it may seem as though it's the difference between opinion in what 'looks nice'. However, disregarding the oil issue at the moment, we are currently paving over some of the most fertile farming land in the entire world. Farmers near London (I grew up on a farmhouse 50 miles north of the city) are selling their land and having the sprawl continue. This is happening while we are importing vegetables from the United States and beyond.

I am a young man of 21, but I see this and it disturbs me. We will regret this.

People have been building cities for a long time (Paris, London, etc.). The nicest part of any town is no doubt the 'old' part; Kingston, Cobourg, etc. There's a reason for this; people like it, and so they did it. They didn't want to walk too far to get groceries, get to work etc.

Kingston wonders why it has problems attracting businesses, and their new kick is getting more biotech into the area. This would be great, but instead of focusing on a few large companies to generate economic activity, why not lots of small ones?

By integrating stores and shops into a high density, urban situation, Kingston would be much better off than it is now; is it any wonder why the most economically sound part of Kingston is the downtown area?

It's obvious as King Rosen is having the LVEC built right there to increase his property value. This is short-sighted, and if he really wanted to help the town, he would have put that money to helping to redesign the entire city into an urban landscape, to make all of Kingston like downtown.

This only suites to benefit everyone, and maybe if it was like this we wouldn't have a bunch of starving people without a grocery store; as instead of having a central one, there would be many scattered throughout and within walking distance. How much does it cost to operate a huge grocery store? How about one that's the size of a corner store? This is a significant barrier to entry for new businesses, and it doesn't stop at grocery stores; think of the big-box stores up at the Cataraqui Centre; this is why only the large companies move in, they're the ones who can afford it!

Do people in NYC have problems getting groceries, even in winter? No, because there are many small shops located all around.

I excuse myself if that was preachy, but I've finally found some people who'll listen! :)

Thanks for listening.

[Lydia]

Welcome 4Jeg to our site.

Smart Growth is an interesting term. I agree with you that sprawl isn't what anyone wants. Is Ontario really replicating great cities? Do you really think London and Paris are really great cities? Don't get me wrong I do think they are great cities but I wouldn't want to live there. Nor would I want to live in Vancouver or Calgary which I also believe are greater cities.

I don't agree with you that the "older part of Kingston, Cobourg" are the nicest. Do I think any part of a city is nicer than the other? The answer is No I don't because people live where they live because THEY believe it is the best place for them during stages of their lives. All places that you can call HOME is the nicest.

Botech is going to build better cities. Take a look at Kitchener, Waterloo. It is finally getting recognization as the best place to be. It deserves it and the City is great as far as I am concerned.

I like your idea of redesigning th entire city however, everyone should be involved with this. The ENTIRE CITY'S RESIDENTS should be part of those plans. I would get involved with the Planning Department's meetings to get a feel for where the city is going. (Wow did I just say that?? I am getting old! Never thought I would be supporting the Planning Department.lol)

Smaller businesses are good and we should support them. I would love to see a corner grocery story in every neighbourhood. By the way the cost of operating a grocery store depends on who runs it, how they run it, do they employee others, do they know all the wholesalers and suppliers, What taxes are charged against their businesses, etc. Now My personal guess for a ONE OWNER who does not employ anyone would be around 75,000 to $100,000 to operate it and they might clear as a capital maybe $35,000 for a 7:00 am to 11.59 pm. hours. I grew up in that type of business but what do I know.

I would also never want to live in New York City. Toronto to me is a mini NYC. It is for that reason I live here in Kingston.

Take an example from nature. What happens when you put 30 to 50 mice in one small cage?? Now take another 30 to 50 Mice and let them in a room uncaged. Which do you believe would be happier? In my case i lived in Sydney N.S., Toronto, Don Mills, Brampton and now Kingston. I lived on a small farm with a small Grocery store, in a triplex in Rogers Road Toronto, Apartment in Don Mills, A home in Brampton, and now a bunglow in Kingston.

You have a full life ahead of you and I am happy you are thinking now on what you want and how you want to live. Good for you. By the way Thank you for listening and writing to us as well. Good for you.

[4jeg]

Well, I agree! I'm not saying the tight-nit community of Kingston is bad, and I'm not really advocating that we become New York or Paris! ;) But I do think we ought to leverage it, and planning never hurt anyone. And you're ABSOLUTELY right; we should have a community forum over this, which is what we are doing here on a small scale. As of right now even getting to the planning dept. is near impossible without a car, and not that anyone there would listen to you anyway.

Kingston needs to be Kingston. Not Waterloo or Paris or London or Cobourg, but Kingston.

What we need is a plan, formed by the community, as to what Kingston should be. Not just for us, but for everyone, now and future.

I think growing smart and not ending up in sprawl is a key part to that.

[Lydia]

:eek::eek::eek:Wow, I actually agree. lol lol. Don't sell the Planning Committee out just yet. lol lol. (I am not even on it) lol lol.

I like your idea of really getting the community to know and admire what we have here. I agree that Kingston to me is the best place to live at this time and place for me. (Can't speak for others).

We have a lot to be proud of if we work together and build each other up instead of tearing our communities down verbally.

Here is a question that I will be asking others:

If you could be totally incharge of the budget for this city. How would you spend the taxes and why?

This truly is something that the councilors are dealing with. So from your point of view and YOUR life style, what would you do or want.

[Dogma]

Kingston wonders why it has problems attracting businesses, and their new kick is getting more biotech into the area. This would be great, but instead of focusing on a few large companies to generate economic activity, why not lots of small ones?

By integrating stores and shops into a high density, urban situation, Kingston would be much better off than it is now; is it any wonder why the most economically sound part of Kingston is the downtown area?

It's obvious as King Rosen is having the LVEC built right there to increase his property value. This is short-sighted, and if he really wanted to help the town, he would have put that money to helping to redesign the entire city into an urban landscape, to make all of Kingston like downtown.Kingston is traditionally a "Government town". It still is in many ways - examples are numerous - i.e Kingston Military the largest employer and now expanding with with a $100,000,000 (million) dollar expansion. It will employ over 7500. Also - Queens University, Corrections Canada...9 jails in the area.

Manufacturing Sector: as in many parts of Ontario have lost 250,000 jobs and Canadians traditionally are dead last with the G7 to invest significantly in R&D or training to stem the eastern low cost countries influence on corporate shareholders. And just to remind you - that we all voted for the Governments in power post war that could have had such an adgenda. But, the public was not in tune with twhat other G7 countries were doing or as many should know we are one of the least richist countries in the G7. And please don't say the oil sands is a good example - its frankly a bad industrial site.

Kingston in particular has lost over 5000 jobs (most well paying jobs) in the past 10 years. Kingston suffers from being both centrally isolated and slow in its resolve to turn things around for the broader community. It also has a typical small town mentality of not changing with its times.

Your community "forum" on the surface seems like a reasonable contribution.

But, I doubt in many ways that we would have much to gain from this overly complicated way to get to the root cause, to move forward. I believe KEDCO, and smaller economic development forums would have a more significant result than asking 100,000 people their opinion on economic development matters.

Infact, I would say because of so many social agencies here in the city/town - the agenda would be to fluid and would loss focus quickly and cost a fortune. Maybe you would like to bankroll it?

I say we have the tools and the means (now) to create or at least talk about change - lets use them.

Mr. Rosen may seem like one who has "bullied" his way to make the LVEC happen - but I doubt it had little to do with his personal wealth. (I would only ask you to prove such assumptions or come up with a better short sighted argument.) But, as this town knows gossip is *****....

I would not also expect you or Mr. Rosen to bankroll the billion dollars to make the suburbs "like historic downtown". I find this perplexing and unreasonable.

I like your passion about these subjects and your interest in urban planning. I agree that urban sprawl is an issue and that land development and the current planning (code) maybe outdated.

Reform is likely necessary.

But, as I said we do not need to reinvent the wheel.

There are many resources and examples of European cities that are 20 years ahead of North America in terms of sustainable development initatives.

To throw money at a taskforce for Kingston would be a possibility, but I would suggest we should wait until the elections in Ontario are complete.

Thanks you again for your references to UC Berkley lectures and welcome 4Jeg to our site.

[Lydia]

:D:D:D:D

Hay, Dogma, My Gossip is FREE it isn't *****, ***** implyies being paid for it. lol lol. And I have not seen a cent going my way. And watching I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE THINKING lol lol.

Happy Thanks Giving to everyone on Kingston Electors.

[Dogma]

One thing I forgot to clarify - as you suggest: "Mr. Rosen's LVEC" - is situated downtown, close to what you suggest is the best location for such an economic stimulating investment. The LVEC business plan clearly states the reasons why the LVEC is where it is. Would you want it to take up good farmland? Or placed in the suburbs of Kingston, creating more sprawl?



By integrating stores and shops into a high density, urban situation, Kingston would be much better off than it is now; is it any wonder why the most economically sound part of Kingston is the downtown area?

It's obvious as King Rosen is having the LVEC built right there to increase his property value. This is short-sighted, and if he really wanted to help the town, he would have put that money to helping to redesign the entire city into an urban landscape, to make all of Kingston like downtown.


And Lydia - I don't understand....


And watching I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE THINKING lol lol.

[Lydia]

Okay, Dogma, I give you an opportunity too say my Gossips is only worth 2 cents worth. When I said my gossip is Free not *****.

Dogma, I think that the LVEC should have been in the North End of the city by Division and 401 or Montreal and 401. Not because of sprawl but because more people would come from Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa. etc. Why do I think that? I think that because as far as I am concerned it would draw people to Kingston and they just MIGHT want to visit more of what Kingston offers had there been a Kiosk which advertised all the other events that the city has going for it.

However, what is done is done. Keep in mind, I live in the Former Township of Kingston NOW THE CITY OF KINGSTON. I would still favour the Division and Montreal/401 location.

Had the LVEC been there, I don't believe we needed the Multiplex where it is and Costs could have been saved by joining the two projects into one large one. However, it is only my opinion.

Now that we have two projects lets make the most out of them and work together to make both of them properous.

[Dogma]

LVEC at the 401 would take away from Kingstons downtown. People visiting for shows and alike would likely never venture downtown.

The Corel Centre outside Ottawas downtown did exactly that. I know this as a fact.

I agree that maybe one could have combined the two distinct venues, LVEC & Multiples, but I am sure this would not have resulted in any more economic advantage. They are distinct venues (one hockey/sports) (one some sport and entertainment) is enough to tell me that they belong separate and strategically also placed as they are.

I rely on the experts for good advice.

I only wish council and many other groups "listen" for a change to persons that we pay for research and advise. Not to politicize it as many including Downes and Garrision have taken advantage of.

The City Staff are on the front lines of the research and (in the know) just shut up and listen to them and we will be duly repaid.

These two teachers have undermined the process an our public elective system. I hope they never win a poker game let alone a political race in their life time, they certainly do not want to hear the truth or allow others to speak and know the true meaning of integrity!

[Lydia]

Okay, Dogma, I just want you to know one thing. I do not believe ALL CITY STAFFERS KNOW ANYTHING let alone EVERYTHING.

They do not run this city, They are paid to do a job which I believe that 99% of them do with expertise and I would trust completely.

It is the 1% the screw everything up for the others. It that 1% that make people like me not trust 100% in what happens at city hall.

So to tell someone to shut up and trust. It isn't the way it will ever be.

There has been many times that OVERAGES on projects were WAY OUT OF WACKY and didn't reflect what was originally projected. There was many times where projects FAILED COMPLETELY. Where money wasn't collected on events properly.

So don't be so upset with Rick or John. Both of them are very good men and I also happen to think that Bridget Doherty is also an excellent lady for this city. We are very lucky to have these people represent us.

[Dogma]

As you know, 99% of the time even for me is a good score...we should only remember this. I would also add if the 1% is always focused on - it would be obvious to anyone - they must just have to much time on their hands and an ego to boot. I do not have time for such simple mindness.

Again - these staffers are trained to strategically think, research & work in teams with business & agencies to come up with the (the plan) and thus the resulting best value, best options for any given project. Ofcourse there will be problems, overruns and Government tape for them to be accountable for. But, I see no naysayers applying for any of the positions at City Hall!

It is the will and vote of the citizens that set the agenda. Its not the other way around. So, please do not allow yourself to blame the staff at the city - for our public initative issues.

e.g - The Grand Theatre was a problem from the beginning. STARTED I must add by the public and its interest groups. (period)

It had little to do with the City Staff. They infact saved the day! By controlling the situation that was well out of hand by the "interest groups" - Heritage Groups in particular!

Council(s) past and present - perpetuated the problem - by rubber stamping - not only the project but the funds.

Staff were again caught in the crossfires, even though they recommended NOT to go ahead with the Grands full reno!

And both Rick Downes and (Steve) Garrison rubber stamped for the go ahead.

Now go ahead and vote for the Liberals!

[4jeg]

The LVEC shouldn't have happened. The Memorial Centre should have been fixed up instead. There are simple and practical reasons for this:

- Downtown parking for a large venue is going to be very bad

- Downtown is doing fine economically; other areas of town need the development

- The LVEC only seats a fraction of the people the Memorial Centre does.

Those are my two cents.

[Dogma]

I appreciate your opinions --- or two cents - I think you have valid concerns - but I believe you have been listening to much to the naysayers interest groups and the Voice or PIC press rather than reasonable (less conspiracy laden news)

You also maynot have read fully (or any?) of the LVEC business plan or any marketing studies, traffic studies that have been published for over 2 years.

- parking and the master transportation plan sets rules for public, private development for the City regarding future transportation methods: ( to stop or slow down urban sprawl, i.e roads)

- "the transportation master plan" has incentives, guidelines for personal mobility rates for the city going forward.

- Walking and biking are some of the criteria.

- I beg to differ this is a bad idea for the LVEC to be located in a pedestrian area. Rather than near the 401 (urban sprawl incentive!) or even (gosh forbid) on the Memorial Centre site..that is not even near a business service area.

Downtowns businesses have suffered from lower revenues - because of the high dollar, Sars and the new passport laws due in the next year or so.

US vistors are down by 40% this year and last year...I would say it will be the same if not wors next year..I would heed my long term observations AND please take also into account...that downtown business also pay heavily in taxes (in fact 10 times) what residential homes pay on average.

One bad year especially for the "home grown" businesses could be disaster! I encourage local business, but..

Ask the Sleepless Goat how well they are doing, if they are working less for the same revenues.
....or how they fair - after a poor year? Get the real answers from the people or owners that live it.

The Starbucks etc are also starting to move in.. because?
-They can afford the rent/taxes and also to loss money over a bad year. Mom and pops cannot.

- I see more dollar stores now than ever seen on Princess St. and as an example of the robust suggestion...
the Epicure Diner has been closed for 3 years on upper Princess St. - still with NO new tenants to date!

- the only stores really making a go are upscale shops, they are renovating and expanding.
such as the Golden Roaster, high end service bakeries, deli's etc..and ofcourse multinational stores.

Thats not enough "local" homegrown long term sustainability in my experience.

The LVEC:

From the lastest City on line updates - on City website has (monthly) updates of the LVEC
Also updates are also avaliable @ council meetings on Cogeco 13 - Tuesday nights at 7:30 p.m

LVEC Features compared to the M Center:

- the LVEC can now seat almost twice as many people than the M Centre and (can expand) to almost 6000 seats.
- The M Centre can hold maybe 4000 (uncomfortably I may add) - M centre is also NOT multipurpose
i.e put on shows etc. at the same time a hockey game is on.
- LVEC feature the distinguishes from the old M- Center is the fact it can change to different configurations to suite concerts, stage plays..
- LVEC has state of the art sound, visual and estetic design built into its design - M Center when build was on a budget for a very limited/basic design
- no design elements 50 years ago - were considered as they are now. i.e Multipurpose facility with concert and stage performance requirements.

- by all recent studies would cost up to $ 20,000,000 to fix it - "without significantly adding to the multipurpose usage that an LVEC does". (and this is not my quote) it was from a consultant and not the same one that worked on the Medicine Hat LVEC / verse old area study....

- in other words (they independently agreed) the old "design" rinks - would still be just be a small hockey rink. Even afte the 20 million reno. Most of the monies would go towards, upgrading electrical, infastructure rellated to safety oin the M Center and current building codes. The outside barns would not be rebuilt, in this budget.

Please read the business plan and visit the following blog for more informative information: http://lvec-showtime.blogspot.com/

[Dogma]

Job losses will multiply: Hargrove (http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=760364&auth=Gary+Norris+The+Canadian+Press)
Posted 3 days ago in Commerce (http://www.thewhig.com/SearchCat.aspx?cat=Commerce)

The latest job cuts at Chrysler LLC will cost thousands of Canadian jobs directly and at parts suppliers - some of which may face bankruptcy [...]

Sonoco a local fibre paper producer closes its doors throwing another 25 good jobs away!

And another long time Harp fiber producer also closes its door completing a 100 job losses for the west end of Kingston.

Bosal once a large employer also cuts another 15 jobs - down from a 150 job workforce to now under 70. And more to come...

So, you say Kingston has a future if we do nothing attract or encourage good paying jobs - or for them to stay???

I think this is just more proof..that Kingston is slowly becoming a seniors retirement home.

[Lydia]

I hate to admit it but I am really starting to agree with you Dogma.


I also think that with the Canadian Dollar going up as it is, there will be much more companies going away or out of business.


Now lets see. No or little manufacturing done here. We rely on China to feed us more and more very day, Dollar rising sky high. Does it seem that we are being done over??

[Dogma]

Lydia - the only thing you forgot is that you and the U.S citizen will now need a passport to cross the bridge (of the so called) longest unguarded border in the world - to buy a new pair of shoes, gas or a toaster or visit Kingston's new LVEC.

Some how we have lost most of our "past" assumptions with little or no fight.

P.S - I recommend you read a book called: "Mexicans don't drink Molsons" by Audrey J- Campbell. She studied the reality of Canadian business influences around the world - and basically concludes Canadians have built little or no significant companies in our history.

Infact, Alcan and Falconbridge were built by Americans, Magna International by an Austrian - she goes further- and that we - and all we ever have said to want is a "job". (provided by someone else) And frankly, I agree.

I remember hearing continually all you need to do is have a job - if you said you are starting a company - most family and friends would laugh
and see you as a non conformist or just a silly person with pipe dreams.

I plan to get the book this weekend to get a more clear or open opinion...

But on TVO she gave very specific examples of our lack of enterpenuership or care that we have lost our minimul major instiutions or as you said "basic staples".!

[Lydia]

:DWOW,are you telling me that I need a passport, and NEW shoes to visit the LVEC???? :D:D:D:D

I never will go across the border of the USA to buy things *****er. I will if I am also going there for a trip to the Casinos, Trip to have a vacation. Put never just for a few hours of shopping. I remember when everone was doing that many years ago. For what my family purchases, we never really found it worthwhile. Of course, I would prefer more of a selection on things but I am not materialistic and never was. For those who do, I am not against them getting a better deal. They are the smart ones. I don't see our companies doing anything to lower prices, I don't see our companies ensuring that WE CANADIANS get more choices. We actually are getting what we deserve.


Some how we have lost most of our "past" assumptions with little or no fight.

You are correct, we are a very laid-back society. We don't think twice about electing people and EXPECTING them to do what they PROMISED. We don't think twice about electing people WHO REPRESENT US and not the corporate offices.

P.S - I recommend you read a book called: "Mexicans don't drink Molsons" by Audrey J- Campbell. She studied the reality of Canadian business influences around the world - and basically concludes Canadians have built little or no significant companies in our history.

Thank you for the title of that book. I think I will read that book as well. Do you think Chapters will ALLOW US to purchase it at the AMERICAN prices???
Of course maybe the LIBRARY can get it as well.

Are you looking for a JOB working for someone else??? I have one for you . SEARS CAN'T GET the RIGHT person to work for them. They are in the process of training people in order to hire them. Just talk to the Store Manager and tell him you are interested. I found out when I was ticked off because there wasn't ENOUGH people working in Sears at Cataraqui Mall. lol lol Heck I am a customer and I WANT SERVICE.

WOW you mean everyone who started a company is seen as A NON CONFORMIST OR JUST AN ***** WITH PIPE DREAMS????? And here I thought that they were enterpenuers with guts and not lazy people. Of course I have seen many ****** on the show Dragon's Den looking for money. and I also saw many people who truly deserve support for the business venture.


You don't need to get the book for a clear an open opinion. :D:D:D:D
Your opinions are VERY CLEAR AND WIDE OPEN.



But on TVO she gave very specific examples of our lack of enterpenuership or care that we have lost our minimul major instiutions or as you said "basic staples".!

She is totally correct when we RELY on CHINA, USA, MEXICO for our existance for everything we buy. It is a sad state that Canada is in.

HAVING SAID THAT DON'T BLAME THE CANADIAN PEOPLE, THEY ARE NOT LAZY. They are LAID BACK AND WELCOMING PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTIES DOES NOT MAKE YOU LAZY. Dogma you sound like you really HATE Canadians (Hate might be too strong a word). Are you Canadian? I am with Eurpeon Family Ties. If you NEED to play the BLAME GAME, blame our elected federal and provinical candidates for the choices they have us in. Okay also BLAME US FOR ELECTING those Candidates. We are lucky here in Kingston, we have had VERY GOOD CANDIDATES to choose from. Unfortunately, district in Canada has not.

You have to remember that CIVIL WAR has happened in MOST if not ALL Eurpeon Countries because the people hold grudges for centuries. How do I know? It was only up to 1950's that Ukrainian and Polish people actually got a long and learned the better way to live in CANADA.

[Dogma]

I never will go across the border of the USA to buy things *****er.


You and I may not typically - but 100's of thousands do.

Thats my point, now with this new passport requirement many Americans will NOT travel to Canada - to either spend monies with our economy or for trips - typically for one/two day long. (Kingston will be affected by this)

i.e Kingston (typically is a day or two destination) for Americans - for entertainment, sightseeing &/or shopping -
- which may include the entertainment, concerts etc. @ the new LVEC.

- tourism is down NOW by 40% - what do you think the passport rule will now do?


HAVING SAID THAT DON'T BLAME THE CANADIAN PEOPLE, THEY ARE NOT LAZY. They are LAID BACK AND WELCOMING PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTIES DOES NOT MAKE YOU LAZY. Dogma you sound like you really HATE Canadians (Hate might be too strong a word). Are you Canadian? I am with Eurpeon Family Ties.

I can only say YES - I am Canadian - that has travelled, and LIVED in other countries or cultures.
(I also savor very close ties with inlaw that are European and "teach me" of- the reality of their society (now)

i.e Travel:

Most WASPY Canadians and Quebec WASPS - rarely (once in a life time) travel overseas - or go - only south.

Food and Cultural differences:

WASP's really lack and in alot of cases do not wish to understand the difference between:
i.e a Polish Sausage and an American hot dog. And I also know the opposite can be also true.

You call it LAZY: (I call it niave)

Canadian's cannot afford anymore to be NIAVE..they do not live in a bubble
- Global Trends are appearing...on the horizon......you just need to take you head out of the sand. (fast or be buried)

- both in terms of entrepenuership, thinking out of the box, or just relying (to much) on immigrants or Americans to carry the burden of our societies productivity to sustain our "Canadian/ North American Lifestyle".

Neither should we allow our commodities, instiutuions be bought up by anyone with money
- I believe you are correct our structure and laws of foreign ownership are to lacks. Are we to late?

Spend some of your pension money:

I suggest you spend the extra $ 3.00 CDN and give the book a read.

Read and learn from an expert:

I am also sure the books author - describes and can qualify - your assumptions much better.
- and with a dose of evidence that one needs to truely consider.

(Rather than believing a rambling madman yelling it at the top of ones lungs!) - like me !

[Lydia]

(Rather than believing a rambling madman yelling it at the top of ones lungs!) - like me !


HAY, lol (Canadian) STOP FLATTERING YOURSELF. lol

I will buy that book and I will discuss it with you on line. I agree we really should take our heads out of the sand and really take a good look at what is happening to our society. My FEAR is that it could be too late and that people are giving up the fight.

[Dogma]

Yes - get the book if you please. That would be fun.

http://www.andreamandelcampbell.com/book.htm