Limiting Urban Sprawl - Smart Growth: Official Plan Change

[posting]

SMART GROWTH - LIMITING URBAN SPRAWL


At a time of global trends toward re-urbanization and more compact cities, Kingston is proposing the opposite by expanding its urban growth boundary in its draft Official Plan. An urban boundary represents the limit of urban development that will occur over the planning horizon of an Official Plan.

Kingston’s proposed urban boundary expansion is in direct conflict with recommendations of the 2004 Urban Growth Strategy (UGS) commissioned by the City. This study was a comprehensive review of growth issues faced by the amalgamated City of Kingston, commissioned by the City in order to guide its new Official Plan. The UGS established an urban boundary encompassing sufficient land to accommodate development until 2026 (the planning horizon of the new Official Plan). Despite no new studies since the UGS, the City now proposes expanding its urban boundary to include areas with large significant woodlands on the periphery of the existing settlement area. (see www.kingstoncitzensforsmartgrowth.wordpress.com (http://www.kingstoncitzensforsmartgrowth.wordpress.com/) for more information on this topic)

Kingston's proposed Urban Boundary expansion puts Significant Woodlands at risk to development. Developers lobbied to extend the boundary despite population studies showing there is no need. Expansion of the urban boundary risks having the forest being paved over for development in the near future.

Areas at risk include woodlands in Mile Square Block near Collins Creek in the St. Lawrence Community and an area North of the 401 near Division Street.

YOUR HELP IS NEEDED AND TIME IS RUNNING OUT. The deadline for public input on Kingston's Official Plan is Friday June 13, 2008. Write the City Planning Department and your District Councillor to express your opinion about the proposed urban boundary expansion and the threat this poses to woodlands. The City web site ( www.cityofkingston.ca/residents/development/officialplan (http://www.cityofkingston.ca/residents/development/officialplan)) includes a section for citizen comment.

For more information and for a SAMPLE LETTER see:

www.kingstoncitizensforsmartgrowth.wordpress.com (http://www.kingstoncitizensforsmartgrowth.wordpress.com/)


Celeste Booth
Kingston Citizens for Smart Growth
www.kingstoncitizensforsmartgrowth.wordpress.com (http://www.kingstoncitizensforsmartgrowth.wordpress.com/)

[4jeg]

The Ontario Smart Growth Network (http://www.smartgrowth.on.ca/)

[Lydia]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This city asks Kedco to bring in Business Development into this city. REsidents believe that Kedco isn't bring in businesses. Hum, now I ask is it Kedco's fault when the PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHOOSES to place nothing but red tape in to way of new businesses wishing to come here.

I recently received an e-mail from Bruce Todd. I believe he says it beautifully. Don't Blame Kedco blame PLANNING DEPARTMENT for lack of interest in new businesses coming to Kingston.

Planning departments can STOP businesses but THEY CAN NOT ORDER BUSINESSES WHERE TO PLACE THEIR BUSINESSES.

E-MAIL BELOW

The fact that the City of Kingston's Planning Committee has turned down the application for Loew's to come to Kingston disturbs me - greatly.

I can understand members of the Planning Committee agreeing with the recommendations of the city's Planning Department, because the city's Planning Department should be viewed as professional, knowledgeable, and responsible. But if I were a councillor, I would want to supplement my agreement with Planning staff with a very strong caveat.

I have read and reread the submission by Planning Staff, and every time I do, one thing seems clear - the City of Kingston is not ready for business, and it certainly is not ready for "big business". The rumours I have heard in the past are apparently true. Apparently, there are commercial classifications out there (and maybe others in the industrial classifications, etc.) that don't fit any Official Plan classifications the city has embodied in their Plans. To me, that is ludicrous.

I am starting to become a believer in the rumours that this city is not ready for business! Imagine the negative news press Kingston has got over this.

One statement from the Planning Department said that this would be an isolated development from the south. How does one accept such a statement when the development is adjacent to the Canadian Tire operation directly and adjacent to the south?

These big businesses ARE big businesses because they know where to locate. Location is everything in business. Does the Planning Department of Kingston doubt this fact for a moment? For the Planning Department to make a statement that Lowe's considers location to be important "is not a good enough reason" lowers my respect for the knowledge Planning staff should have.

Kingston may wish to "relegate" where things happen, but do they really understand the nature of business success? One can expect work places to be located just about anywhere. But that is definitely not the case for commercial locations.

And how did the most recent Urban Growth Study for Kingston lump commercial and industrial lands together as "employment" lands when they shouldn't have?

And do councilors or anybody else understand why "commercial" lands should not be considered as "employment lands"?

Has anybody not noticed that Gardiners Road and Midland Avenue have become the new Bath Road strip shopping streets?

Are the taxpayers of Kingston paying KEDCO millions of dollars a year to bring development into the City, while the Planning Department can set all sorts of obstacles in the road of such progress?

The City of Kingston has many hectares of land waiting for new development. Does the "readiness" of this new land not meet the present day needs and expectations of incoming development?

My reading of the Planning Department's position is that they do not know whether they are coming or going - after all this time of amalgamation. For them to be relying upon the results of a Kingston Township 1997 report as to how Gardiner's Road should be developed is laughable at best.

I am sure that councillors did not turn down Loew's development because of the benefits it would bring to the community. Maybe councillors will stand up Tuesday night and explain to the citizens of this community that they make the rules for this city, except when it comes to the Planning Department, which hasn't yet after ten years of amalgamation got their act straight.

If the Planning Department doesn't know how much land it has in the various categories - if there are business classifications out there that the Planning Department hasn't heard of - if there are numerous questions that are unresolved - then why do we have KEDCO who awaits to promote the city?

Bruce.
__________________
-- Lydia

[Lydia]

I have found myself siding with Councilors whom i rarely agree with. This happened when the side for Lowes to get the site they wanted here in Kingston.

Recently, I send an e-mail to the No sided Councilors and told them that I was very upset with their position. However, since I didn't see or hear council dealing with the issue, I asked the No side for their reasons.

I have always found that these councilors were fairly open to discussing their reasoning and therefore I asked them why they choose to say NO.

Joyce MacLeod Kane was kind enough to bring me a tape of the council meeting. So thank you for that Joyce. I also got responses from Lisa
Osanic and Bill Glover. Despite listening to their side, I am still not happy with their decision.

However, I firmly believe that people should understand their views on this. So I ask all of you what your honestly think.

As I see it, this council is very very concerned about Urban Sprawl and that if this city was to grow North of 401 it would cost us $350,000,000 to put in the infrastructure north of the highway. Then the boundaries would all have to change.

Also this city only has 5% Industrial land. We have plenty of Commerical land that Lowe could access if they wished. By law 5% was required by Provincial law for any municipality.

Although by saying No to Lowes, this city has lost jobs for people in this city. However, had council said YES, this city would still have lost jobs for people only this time from existing businesses.

Some people believe that only one or two families in this city would really become richer from this deal as well. Do you want only those families to become wealthier???

The official plan has not been ratified as yet and it would not be fair to change rules for Lowes. It is safer to say No at this point and time unless we are ready to make exceptions for anyone wishing to change zones.

Now keep in mind that this my own perception from watching The No-sided Councilors. Knowing all of the above reasons, I still would side with allowing Lowes to come to any site that they wished.

It was heart warming to hear Leonore Foster stating that she was for Lowes coming here even though she would prefer them to come to her district. Leonore, Thank you for that. Usually I pick on you but at heart I believe you are trying your best for this city.

I found that I agreed fully with the Yes Councilors on all their points and I think that this council could have dealt with the No side by addressing their concerns.

I firmly believe that the Yes side made a much better argument for allow Lowes to come here.


Now let's hear from all of you!!!:confused::confused:

[gdcs]

It would appear that after ten years since Amalgamation industry is just not going to come to Kingston. I wish it wasn't so, but...... It's about time that Kingston government and bureaucracy started rethinking the game plan. The present system is sure a failure. All the good intentions in the world aren't helping. Maybe learn what Belleville is doing, and copy it.

[4jeg]

I somehow don't think that what Belleville is doing is exactly a model of success.

Selling all of Kingston's land to create more retail space is not going to help, either. On that note, I wouldn't bet on having some large industry move to town and save the day.

No, instead what needs to happen is for us to become a tad bit more creative in thinking about this problem. Fundamentally this is a question of available money and opportunity within the community. The fact is that at this point in history, with the aging baby-boomer generation and green-concious public, people want to move to a place that has a supply of green power, is easily naviagable without a car, provides interesting events and rich culture, and is generally a nice place to live. Kingston can provide these things and attract people and their money along with them; however, by building large box stores and rest-stops like the one that's just been built, you will not do so.

Instead, going that route, you will create a place that is like Napanee. Whom will buy from these stores? Is everyone going to work there? What happens when Wal-Mart cuts wawges and benefits and fires anyone who attempts to unionize? It took people about 80 years to figure out the lesson that you need unions to prevent exploitation.

I'm a young person, I own a house here, and I even have a professional degree that I one day hope to build a company upon, here in Kingston. By building more big box stores, destroying the natural beauty of this place, and suggesting we 'copy Belleville' -- these things make me want to move away from here.

There is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution here. GM is not going to set up shop. Instead, Kingston should attempt to create a nice place to live, so that people come (or stay) with their ideas to help this place prosper.

If you'd like to read a book to see how Kingston ought to model itself, especially because of its large current advantage, read Who's Your City by Richard Florida.

[Dogma]

The main issue - I see with statements like the latter, is procedure, and policy - and the after the fact comments from coucil memebers to create an image of indecision and unprofessional (council) and business conduct.

The concept to have Lowes /or whatever is not the issue...it will happen again!

I just hope we can act more professionally with Kingston's business policy's (and Growth policies) and assure the public and business's seeking such ventures (i.e spending the time and money pursuing Kingston's current/future infastructure) that Kingston act's reasonably or have policies in place that mitigate such "grey decision making" in the future by council and the general planning committee's.

Someone suggested: with regards to BOX stores (rubber stamping) verses smaller local stores competitiveness...

"It makes you wonder what's going on behind the scenes."


I think one who see's with rose colour glasses with Global procurement or "brand marketing consumerism" - needs a NEW glasses to BUY.

There is no "conspiracy" going on. (Please save it for the LVEC)

Infact; smaller "family owned" businesses like (local) F.W Blacks, Glen Suppliy - are in general more competitve in products i.e appliance's and specialty product i.e woods, paints than "branded box stores".

Glen Supply (has more money in the bank even after their new sign...$$)
than most "building supply" outlets - because they have "specialize", in business for years and have contractor loyalty already established.

It is a TOTAL MYTH that "box" stores are/or offer the "best value", including superior service to their customers!

FW Blacks & Glen Supply have products that are just as competitive and "add value" for busy (frugal) customers by being service "experienced" with great prices. Not a 16 year old kid at Canadian Tire with Saturday night on their mind....kinda service! (Been there?)

Small retailer products have "variety", for the deserning comsumer...but also do not have the walking mile (Warehouse) or "box" stores senerio's with linups here to RMC but are designed "warehouse variety". Unfortunately; as Canadaun Tire has demonstrated and DEPOTS around town - you pay for the lack of service, and the high pressure sales experience (i.e extended warranties) when you decide on your "unique" "stainless, or granite appliance" or fauw finished front door handle! (All to impress the neighbours)

Any other concept(s) and "conspiracy theories" should be ignored in this forum.

Small is BIG.

So, just build it!

[Lydia]

WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAT "There is no "conspiracy" going on. (Please save it for the LVEC)"

Heavens No!!! We all need MORE conspiracy theories. Without them how would we ever get to complain about anything????


It really comes down to two things for me. Services and the Cost of Services.

I want BOTH. A person with a small store can be just as competitive as the bigger one. Oh i can hear you all now saying, " You are kidding".

No I am not kidding, a smaller store gives me respect, caring, reasonable pricing, SERVICE. etc. The only thing a BIG one gives me is *****er prices and very rarely service. A smaller store gives me time to look around and enjoy merchandise. A bigger one gives me a pushy sales representative that I totally ignore all the time. I will shop where I find the best VALUE and usually that really means a smaller store.

I don't want to be taken for a ride when I buy from either small or big. I like the idea of having both Small and Big stores available to me.

So I say Let's bring in Lowes, Why not, we all ready have the OTHER big box stores, Rona, Home Depot, Canadian Tire, Home Hardware, etc.

[Dogma]

"family owned" businesses like (local) F.W Blacks, Glen Supply - are in general more competitve in products i.e appliance's and specialty product i.e woods, paints than "branded box stores".

It is a TOTAL MYTH that "box" stores are/or offer the "best value", including superior service to their customers!




I want BOTH. A person with a small store can be just as competitive as the bigger one. Oh i can hear you all now saying, " You are kidding".


This is why a great deal of products come from China, and that we have a credit/financial crisis in the world.

"CONSUMERS" - WANT IT ***** AND CHEERFUL!

[Lydia]

You are correct Dogma, I do want it ***** AND CHEERFUL, however, I also look at the TOTAL cost of things, not just the lower price on a price tag. There is a difference.

I won't buy products from China, Mexico, if I know that those products can be made here just as easily.

TD financial seminars in Kingston put on FREE seminars. This was discussed today. We seem to think that we are the ONLY ones who know IT businesses and skills. Wake up folks, those high paying jobs are also going to China, Russia, Indian, Brazil, etc.

We better wake up and start PRODUCTING industry or at least Businesses. We should be welcoming ANY AND ALL of them to Kingston. GEt rid of the Red Tape.

[Dogma]

Lydia - You are the exception. Most consumers are Walmart shareholders.

***** and to cheerful! :):):):):):):):):):D

[Dogma]

Lowe's and highs of misinformation

Mr. Bruce Todd's article "Kingston should welcome the Lowe's Development" and (Mr. Swifts previously) during the LVEC, Lowe's "planning theory" debates, both men clearly lacked any facts or experience with Kingston's official transportation master plan.

Multiple articles on Todd's favourite subject (LVEC Parking Nightmare) "swiftly" melted away like Dorthy's nemeses during the first 3 sold out events at the LVEC. Todd had claimed of parking spot fistfights, immeasurable walking distance through giant snowdrifts to the LVEC, which were subsequently debunked with his credentials as a self proclaimed "traffic engineer".

And one need not read beyond Mr. Swift's article titles "Beware of of big box retailer inducements" or "LVEC-ed", before one understands how his particular pernicious "conspiracy" articles have been "crafted" for the Young & Restless crowd.

His no so swift understanding of "master plan" like Todd's, KCAL are only based on fairy tales and some well played up town gossip.

My question is how either man who claim to be public allies, are so sure the public wants their "wizardry" on our public development plans after such misleading "BIG Lie's" of their own?

Maybe we should all close our eye's, click our heals 3 times and wish they were both in Kansas?

[Lydia]

Lmao okay Dogma, You got me here lmao. Get me out of Kansas lmao because I am actually with you on this one. lmao:D:D

[Dogma]

The Lowe's application: It's called free enterprise

Posted By

Posted 3 hours ago



Re: Jamie Swift's column "Be wary of big-box retailers" (Oct. 22), which comments on the controversy over the Lowe's home improvement chain's application for rezoning of a piece of land on which it wants to build a store.

Swift is obviously in a position of influence as a teacher of a course called "Critical Perspectives on Business" at Queen's University. After reading his column, I would suggest that the word "so******tic" be substituted for "critical."

Throughout Swift's column, he employs negative phrases and comments directed at retail and business interests, such as "predatory," "making money" and "self-interested developers." I am astounded that he is actually teaching our future generations -at Queen's School of Business, no less -in a way that will shape their philosophical thinking. One of the Queen's program's objectives must be to ensure that students graduate with a viewpoint that defines business people as a bunch of selfserving pariahs.

To imply that government at any level should involve itself in "judging" what kind or size of retail operation is good for our municipality is wrong. This is a very slippery slope indeed. When are there enough car dealerships, computer stores, convenience stores, hardware stores, insurance brokers, florists, accountants, lawyers, etc.? By whose measure or standard do we say that we are now "maxed out" in a particular line of retail business or profession?

Retail businesses small and large, both downtown and uptown, open with hopes and dreams, and some succeed while others do not. Some entrepreneurs have their dreams shattered, but at least they tried and will move on, while the successful ones will flourish. It is called free enterprise, and it is now being discovered with delight by former so******t countries.

Official Plans are moving targets and need to be revisited every few years to ensure that they reflect up-to-date thinking, demands and opportunities. The current land-use designatation for the preferred Lowe's site is, by all accounts, outdated and the site is not appropriate for industrial use.

Canada is in an economic downturn and attracting industry to Kingston in the near future is going to be a tough sell, let alone attracting an industry to a piece of land that is not conducive to industrial use.

Carl Holmberg
Kingston

[Lydia]

Anyone who puts down businesses is a fool. Every business big and small all start out small and the ones that people want become the big ones.

To put down businesses is discouraging to anyone even contemplating starting one. This nation is prosperious due to people willing to think BIG and TRYING to be Big.

Also I only wish to make people think of one thing. Whether we like it or not we are SALESPEOPLE/Men. We sell what we believe to be important. Our Job and our lives depend on BUSINESSES.

When we discourage this we are actually forcing the powers to be to distroy us. I say LET THE PEOPLE DECIDED. We have been doing okay so far, We are still here!!!!!

We will be here no matter which businesses come or go.