Valley
11-16-2005, 12:25 PM
City Council seems ill prepared to plan and direct the various recreational/entertainment projects coming its way. It will be interesting to see what gets pushed ahead or falls by the way side as we get closer to the municipal election in November 2006.
Confusion reigns over M Centre
By Ian Elliot Whig-Standard November 16, 2005
City council will wait another week before deciding how to chart the future of the Memorial Centre.
A seemingly uncontroversial resolution, endorsing the 9.6-hectare site as a memorial to the city’s war dead and pledging to keep the facility in public hands for public enjoyment, devolved into a morass of amendments and counter-amendments last night.
After a sometimes-stormy debate of more than 45 minutes, council threw up its collective hands and shelved the idea for a week.
At next week’s meeting, the chairman of the committee studying a new multiplex, for which the Memorial Centre was at one point a possible site, will report back with the committee’s own endorsement of the site as a war memorial and public area.
It’ll also suggest a committee including veterans and neighbours be formed to work out a plan for the redevelopment of the arena and grounds.
Ironically, the councillor who’d been pushing hardest for formal assurances that the site would be kept public put forward the amendments that ultimately sidetracked last night’s debate.
Rick Downes, whose previous motion supporting the continued public use of the facility was ruled out of order, added an amendment to Councillor Ed Smith’s nearly-identical motion, calling on the city to give any redevelopment full budgetary support from the city.
“Any revitalization that is going to be putting life into the site requires public money,” he said.
The spectre of “full” support – in effect writing a blank cheque – left many councillors aghast.
“This is going to come back and bite this council,” warned Councillor George Sutherland. “Someone is going to come back with a project that costs 20 to 30 million [dollars] and say, ‘You promised full budgetary support.’ ”
“I don’t like it open-ended,” agreed Deputy Mayor Leonore Foster.
Councillor George Stoparczyk noted the city could be on the hook for work done in the past by private parties without city input or blessing, such as the recent architectural brainstorming session by Williamsville residents, a concept he said was “troublesome.”
With council ready to vote to remove the word “fully” but still commit to financial support for redeveloping the site, Downes then offered to remove the offending word, in exchange for adding another amendment calling for city bureaucrats to draft a redevelopment plan for the Memorial Centre site and property.
That sparked another procedural wrangle and Councillor Kevin George, who chairs the multiplex committee, asked Mayor Harvey Rosen for a one-week delay until his committee could present its ideas to council and a vote could then be taken.
The deferral motion, which itself sparked more procedural debate, eventually passed.
Confusion reigns over M Centre
By Ian Elliot Whig-Standard November 16, 2005
City council will wait another week before deciding how to chart the future of the Memorial Centre.
A seemingly uncontroversial resolution, endorsing the 9.6-hectare site as a memorial to the city’s war dead and pledging to keep the facility in public hands for public enjoyment, devolved into a morass of amendments and counter-amendments last night.
After a sometimes-stormy debate of more than 45 minutes, council threw up its collective hands and shelved the idea for a week.
At next week’s meeting, the chairman of the committee studying a new multiplex, for which the Memorial Centre was at one point a possible site, will report back with the committee’s own endorsement of the site as a war memorial and public area.
It’ll also suggest a committee including veterans and neighbours be formed to work out a plan for the redevelopment of the arena and grounds.
Ironically, the councillor who’d been pushing hardest for formal assurances that the site would be kept public put forward the amendments that ultimately sidetracked last night’s debate.
Rick Downes, whose previous motion supporting the continued public use of the facility was ruled out of order, added an amendment to Councillor Ed Smith’s nearly-identical motion, calling on the city to give any redevelopment full budgetary support from the city.
“Any revitalization that is going to be putting life into the site requires public money,” he said.
The spectre of “full” support – in effect writing a blank cheque – left many councillors aghast.
“This is going to come back and bite this council,” warned Councillor George Sutherland. “Someone is going to come back with a project that costs 20 to 30 million [dollars] and say, ‘You promised full budgetary support.’ ”
“I don’t like it open-ended,” agreed Deputy Mayor Leonore Foster.
Councillor George Stoparczyk noted the city could be on the hook for work done in the past by private parties without city input or blessing, such as the recent architectural brainstorming session by Williamsville residents, a concept he said was “troublesome.”
With council ready to vote to remove the word “fully” but still commit to financial support for redeveloping the site, Downes then offered to remove the offending word, in exchange for adding another amendment calling for city bureaucrats to draft a redevelopment plan for the Memorial Centre site and property.
That sparked another procedural wrangle and Councillor Kevin George, who chairs the multiplex committee, asked Mayor Harvey Rosen for a one-week delay until his committee could present its ideas to council and a vote could then be taken.
The deferral motion, which itself sparked more procedural debate, eventually passed.