posting
05-09-2007, 10:39 AM
From: Portsmouth Villagers Community Association
To: Mayor Rosen and Kingston City Councillors
Date: May 6, 2007
Subject: Midway/amusement park at Lake Ontario Park
At the Arts, Recreation and Community Policies committee meeting on April 26, Councillor Garrison moved an amendment to the staff recommendation for Lake Ontario Park by proposing that an midway/amusement park be incorporated into the future plans for the park. The motion passed and will now go to Council. For the following reasons, we request that Councillor Garrison’s amendment be rejected:
it discounts the consultative process utilized by Parks and Recreation to gather community input which informs the staff recommendation about the future of Lake Ontario Park
it dismisses evidence generated in the Parks and Recreation survey
it is at odds with the view of the Advisory Committee on the merit of a midway at Lake Ontario Park
it is premature, in that it goes beyond a consideration of principles
it is inconsistent with the general principles of the staff recommendation 1. Recognizing the Contribution of the Consultative Process
The original staff recommendation to ARC evolved from an extensive series of consultations facilitated by Parks and Recreation with diverse groups of citizens to seek community input about the future of Lake Ontario Park. The consultative process was exemplary in providing both sufficient time and a forum for the issue to be widely discussed. Staff and the consultant did admirable jobs in distilling these deliberations into the reports and recommendation. The process involved:
A broad based Advisory Group which met for many hours on several occasions over a period of five months beginning in early 2006. The group included community based organizations, interested institutions and business representatives. The Advisory Group was directed to consider in the broadest possible way possibilities for the future of Lake Ontario Park. During their deliberations they benefited from presentations made by invited experts currently involved in Parks planning.
During this period members of the Advisory Group reported back to their constituents to disseminate information and to seek input and ideas about the future of Lake Ontario Park. This was achieved through combinations of personal contact, meetings of the membership of the constituent groups, and communication via e-mail and on web sites.
Finally, Parks and Recreation conducted an Open House at Lake Ontario Park in June where citizens were asked to complete an extensive survey to identify their preferences for park facilities and activities. Subsequently the survey was distributed through Parks and Recreation and the City web site to reach citizens who had not been able to attend the open house. In the end 350 surveys were completed and analyzed. While Councillors certainly have not only the right but the responsibility to scrutinize and amend (improve) recommendations brought before them, they are also obligated to be well informed about the context in which these recommendations have been developed and to provide well founded evidence if amendments are to be suggested. In our opinion the amendment supporting development of an amusement park/midway at Lake Ontario Park does not meet these tests.
2. Parks and Recreation Survey Evidence
In the Parks and Recreation survey a midway ranked dead last on a list of 29 potential park elements. Councillor Garrison questioned whether the demographics of those who responded to the Parks and Recreation survey biased the response against an amusement park. He then asserts that he has evidence of strong support for a midway but provides no clarification about the demographics underlying his recommendation. Moreover, his recommendation begs an important question. If support for an amusement park exists in the community, how does one explain the apparent lack of viability of the midway at Lake Ontario Park in the years prior to its recent closure?
The Parks and Recreation survey data ranked the preferences of 350 respondents for park facilities and activities. While all survey results need to be viewed with appropriate caution, this information should not be summarily dismissed. At this point in time it represents the best documented source of information about the activities and facilities citizens want to see available at Lake Ontario Park. As such the information can contribute to future discussions and decision-making about the desirability of specific components of a park plan.
3. Advisory Committee on the Subject of a Midway
The idea of an amusement park was not supported by the Advisory Group. At one point a member of the Advisory Group longingly expressed the desire to consider a single classic carousel. However discussion suggested that the problems surrounding its operation and maintenance were likely to far outweigh any benefit. Nostalgia is unlikely to provide a good basis for park planning in the 21st century
The deliberations of the Advisory Group did reveal many thoughtful arguments against re-introducing a midway. Among the points raised were the following:
A midway/amusement park is fundamentally at odds with the principal focus on natural environment.
To be commercially successful, a private operator would require a large operation that would be totally out of character with the site.
A small scale midway operated by the city would require on-going human and financial resources out of proportion to the benefits.
A small scale amusement park is unlikely to be a significant attraction for users who are accustomed to operations on the scale of Canada’s Wonderland.
Parks planners advise that the concept of an amusement park is outdated and does not feature in contemporary park planning.
A high quality children’s playground that could also incorporate fitness stations for joggers and walkers as well as other participatory activities would be more desirable than passive midway rides.
Midway rides can require substantial cash outlays to provide an outing for children and grandchildren. This can create a source of discord in what should be a happy family outing and in some cases may even provide reason for not using the park. 4. The recommendation is premature
While the consultative process did involve detailed discussion of possible park facilities and activities, the advisory group agreed with staff that, as a first step in planning Lake Ontario Park, the recommendation to Council should be limited to a statement of planning principles and not privilege specific facilities or activities by mentioning them directly. After Council agreed to general principles, discussion would be undertaken to determine which specific park activities and facilities could best support these principles and a detailed park plan would be produced. The original Staff recommendation reflected this view. Councillor Garrison’s amendment by recommending a specific facility (midway) goes beyond discussing principles and is therefore premature.
5. The recommendation is inconsistent with the principles of the staff recommendation
The original staff recommendation to ARC consisted of a vision statement and eight planning principles. The vision statement and planning principles accurately reflect the consensus reached by the Advisory Group and are consistent with the survey results. Reading of these principles reveals that particular importance is given to:
maintaining and enhancing the natural environment of the site
conserving and creating spaces that will promote active uses year round
ensuring accessibility for all visitors. An amusement park/midway does not fit into this vision.
For the reasons discussed above, we request that Council reject the recommendation to include a midway/amusement park at Lake Ontario Park.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of:
Portsmouth Villagers Community Association
To: Mayor Rosen and Kingston City Councillors
Date: May 6, 2007
Subject: Midway/amusement park at Lake Ontario Park
At the Arts, Recreation and Community Policies committee meeting on April 26, Councillor Garrison moved an amendment to the staff recommendation for Lake Ontario Park by proposing that an midway/amusement park be incorporated into the future plans for the park. The motion passed and will now go to Council. For the following reasons, we request that Councillor Garrison’s amendment be rejected:
it discounts the consultative process utilized by Parks and Recreation to gather community input which informs the staff recommendation about the future of Lake Ontario Park
it dismisses evidence generated in the Parks and Recreation survey
it is at odds with the view of the Advisory Committee on the merit of a midway at Lake Ontario Park
it is premature, in that it goes beyond a consideration of principles
it is inconsistent with the general principles of the staff recommendation 1. Recognizing the Contribution of the Consultative Process
The original staff recommendation to ARC evolved from an extensive series of consultations facilitated by Parks and Recreation with diverse groups of citizens to seek community input about the future of Lake Ontario Park. The consultative process was exemplary in providing both sufficient time and a forum for the issue to be widely discussed. Staff and the consultant did admirable jobs in distilling these deliberations into the reports and recommendation. The process involved:
A broad based Advisory Group which met for many hours on several occasions over a period of five months beginning in early 2006. The group included community based organizations, interested institutions and business representatives. The Advisory Group was directed to consider in the broadest possible way possibilities for the future of Lake Ontario Park. During their deliberations they benefited from presentations made by invited experts currently involved in Parks planning.
During this period members of the Advisory Group reported back to their constituents to disseminate information and to seek input and ideas about the future of Lake Ontario Park. This was achieved through combinations of personal contact, meetings of the membership of the constituent groups, and communication via e-mail and on web sites.
Finally, Parks and Recreation conducted an Open House at Lake Ontario Park in June where citizens were asked to complete an extensive survey to identify their preferences for park facilities and activities. Subsequently the survey was distributed through Parks and Recreation and the City web site to reach citizens who had not been able to attend the open house. In the end 350 surveys were completed and analyzed. While Councillors certainly have not only the right but the responsibility to scrutinize and amend (improve) recommendations brought before them, they are also obligated to be well informed about the context in which these recommendations have been developed and to provide well founded evidence if amendments are to be suggested. In our opinion the amendment supporting development of an amusement park/midway at Lake Ontario Park does not meet these tests.
2. Parks and Recreation Survey Evidence
In the Parks and Recreation survey a midway ranked dead last on a list of 29 potential park elements. Councillor Garrison questioned whether the demographics of those who responded to the Parks and Recreation survey biased the response against an amusement park. He then asserts that he has evidence of strong support for a midway but provides no clarification about the demographics underlying his recommendation. Moreover, his recommendation begs an important question. If support for an amusement park exists in the community, how does one explain the apparent lack of viability of the midway at Lake Ontario Park in the years prior to its recent closure?
The Parks and Recreation survey data ranked the preferences of 350 respondents for park facilities and activities. While all survey results need to be viewed with appropriate caution, this information should not be summarily dismissed. At this point in time it represents the best documented source of information about the activities and facilities citizens want to see available at Lake Ontario Park. As such the information can contribute to future discussions and decision-making about the desirability of specific components of a park plan.
3. Advisory Committee on the Subject of a Midway
The idea of an amusement park was not supported by the Advisory Group. At one point a member of the Advisory Group longingly expressed the desire to consider a single classic carousel. However discussion suggested that the problems surrounding its operation and maintenance were likely to far outweigh any benefit. Nostalgia is unlikely to provide a good basis for park planning in the 21st century
The deliberations of the Advisory Group did reveal many thoughtful arguments against re-introducing a midway. Among the points raised were the following:
A midway/amusement park is fundamentally at odds with the principal focus on natural environment.
To be commercially successful, a private operator would require a large operation that would be totally out of character with the site.
A small scale midway operated by the city would require on-going human and financial resources out of proportion to the benefits.
A small scale amusement park is unlikely to be a significant attraction for users who are accustomed to operations on the scale of Canada’s Wonderland.
Parks planners advise that the concept of an amusement park is outdated and does not feature in contemporary park planning.
A high quality children’s playground that could also incorporate fitness stations for joggers and walkers as well as other participatory activities would be more desirable than passive midway rides.
Midway rides can require substantial cash outlays to provide an outing for children and grandchildren. This can create a source of discord in what should be a happy family outing and in some cases may even provide reason for not using the park. 4. The recommendation is premature
While the consultative process did involve detailed discussion of possible park facilities and activities, the advisory group agreed with staff that, as a first step in planning Lake Ontario Park, the recommendation to Council should be limited to a statement of planning principles and not privilege specific facilities or activities by mentioning them directly. After Council agreed to general principles, discussion would be undertaken to determine which specific park activities and facilities could best support these principles and a detailed park plan would be produced. The original Staff recommendation reflected this view. Councillor Garrison’s amendment by recommending a specific facility (midway) goes beyond discussing principles and is therefore premature.
5. The recommendation is inconsistent with the principles of the staff recommendation
The original staff recommendation to ARC consisted of a vision statement and eight planning principles. The vision statement and planning principles accurately reflect the consensus reached by the Advisory Group and are consistent with the survey results. Reading of these principles reveals that particular importance is given to:
maintaining and enhancing the natural environment of the site
conserving and creating spaces that will promote active uses year round
ensuring accessibility for all visitors. An amusement park/midway does not fit into this vision.
For the reasons discussed above, we request that Council reject the recommendation to include a midway/amusement park at Lake Ontario Park.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of:
Portsmouth Villagers Community Association