Former town manager questions park sale process - Jun. 22, 2010
John Gardner/Courier
Children from St. Stephen Elementary School play in Granville Park on a sunny afternoon. The outing which includes parents and siblings has become an annual event.
BY KATHY BOCKUS
kathy@stcroixcourier.ca
ST. STEPHEN – “Granville Park is a place that says come, and hang out here and enjoy the beauty.
“It’s been a real treasure and it breaks my heart to think you’ll just mow it down. After it’s gone, you can’t get it back.”
An emotional Karen Mawer was one of many area residents who voiced opposition Monday evening to a proposal to rezone and sell Granville Park to developers planning to build a senior citizens complex.
The meeting was held at the St. Stephen Legion and gave the public an opportunity to comment before council votes on a second reading next Monday night, June 28, that would see the park rezoned from park to integrated development with the end result that it would be sold to Disher Enterprises and Hills Point Holdings Limited for $125,000. Developers propose to construct a 30-unit seniors’ residence on the property while maintaining at least 40 per cent of the park for continued public use.
Those expressing their views at the meeting made it clear they were against the sale of the property, not against the Dishers or their ideas for development, suggesting there were alternate sites in the town where the project could go forward.
No one but the developer Gerald Disher spoke in favour of the project.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mayor Jed Purcell said he was pleased with how everyone presented their views but said he would not comment on the issue specifically.
Area resident and former town manager Don Olmstead said he was amazed he needed to be at the meeting to oppose the plan, telling council it seems that there are many solid reasons why it shouldn’t go ahead with the rezoning , “and not a single overriding reason as to why you should.”
He said the process so far has been conducted essentially behind closed doors.
“There are errors in process here,” said Olmstead. “It’s bad politics and it’s certainly bad management. There are other options. It may be legal, but in truth it really doesn’t pass the smell test.”
He said there was a lack of transparency in process thus far and “a sense that the public has not been involved in a really important decision, one that has implications for decades.”
Olmstead described the park as not a little triangle at an intersection, but a central and important piece of property in the community.
He asked why tenders had not been called for its sale or why there had not been a call for proposals if council felt the park was a surplus piece of property.
Olmstead said a process that would see the sale of a park without public consultation was deficient He also said he couldn’t imagine a professional planner with experience coming into the town of St. Stephen and suggesting the sale of green space as the best use for the property.
“It’s the only real park in that part of town, the most densely developed part of St. Stephen.
“Were I sitting where you are I’d be saying we need to look at where we can add park space not take it away.”
He urged council to take a sober second thought on the proposal.
“It’s not easy to come this far and then put the brakes on. I’ve watched and worked with councils over the years,” said Olmstead.
“Real leadership and real statesmanship comes from sober, second thought. I have great respect for people who are willing to do that.”
David Boyd, president of the Charlotte County Condominium Corporation, was encouraged by the response at the meeting.
“I was very pleased with the fact so many came out to speak tonight and they spoke from the heart, why parks are important and of great value to them.
“I feel very positive what took place tonight and I hope on the 28th the council will lay this to rest once and for all,” said Boyd.
Disher assured the meeting the park would not disappear, nor would the large trees be cut down.
“This is not about the destruction of the park; it’s about the revitalization of the park. This is about putting people back in the park,” said Disher, reminding those attending it was not yet a done deal and that council still had to go through a possible two more readings.
He acknowledged there would be a slight increase in traffic in the area if the proposal went ahead.
“It would be a minimal increase, mostly elderly ladies,” said Disher. “I doubt they’ll be squealing their tires, they’re pretty moderate drivers.”
He said the project proposed to bring much needed housing to the town in a water view setting.
Resident Glen Gregory, who said he plays a lot of sports in the town, noted that Granville Park of course wasn’t used much because all the play equipment had been removed.
He said the town doesn’t have enough ball diamonds or playing fields or parks.
“For God’s sake, save Granville Park!” was the plea from area resident Tony Reader.
He said abundant green space and the proximity of the community to the river were two of the town’s greatest features.
He said allowing the park to be rezoned and sold would disturb the peace and tranquility of the area. “There is more to life than money and profit,” he stated.
He said the park was a place where children could meet old people, old people could meet kids, and rich people could meet poor.
In a survey he conducted of 37 people in the area, 35, he said, were opposed to the sale.
However, Disher noted that he took around Reader’s survey form to residences in the same area and got 26 other people who responded favourably to the rezoning and sale.
Boyd, in a video presentation, noted that the council was but the temporary custodian of the park and had a duty to preserve it for future generations. He said parks improve the health and well-being of the citizens and were community focal points.
He questioned why Granville Park had been allowed to suffer from what he called benign neglect and cited council’s lack of vision and imagination as the reason the park was in its current deteriorated state.
Boyd asked why the town would destroy valuable irreplaceable property that was important to its heritage.
In the video Olmstead was featured stating councillors are transitory beings, but that the park was a core asset of the community.
Resident Betty White urged councillors to vote their conscience and vote as their constituents want them to vote.
Evelyn Brinkman and her husband John have just purchased a property at 53 Prince William St. She said she and her daughter, both nurses, hope to develop the building into a place of healing, where people can come to escape the stresses of the world, “where people who are broken can come to heal.”
“The sale of the park would diminish what we felt God wanted us to do,” she said.
Advertisements
