Since then, from my point of view, the answer to that question has become abundantly clear.
The transfer in ownership of publicly owned waterfront property, to private developers, has been the goal of certain public civil servants and elected officials for quite some time now, and we are currently witnessing the result of several years of "planning" towards that end.
Success in delivering the Bay Beach waterfront, to developers, would be the first step in transforming Abino Bay's shoreline from today's family owned "cottages" to developer owned "high density" residential/commercial "monoliths".
Back in May "09, at a presentation to the CBIA by Town Planner-Rino Mostacci, Mr. Mostacci unabashedly announced this very concept: "The Vision" as foreseen from his office.
Town Planners, as the title suggests, look at things from long range, and well, plan accordingly. (I know, hardly a revelation).
A troubling part of this whole affair is the fact that now, as in the past, the idea of giving up any of our publicly owned waterfront, is NOT supported by a vast majority of our community. That said, sensible development and improvement IS supported by everyone, but when one voices opposition to the current Molinaro plan, you're labeled "anti-development" and in some cases, unjustly accused of spreading misinformation and innuendo.
This current Council and Mayor have shown little, if any, leadership or inclination to improve Bay Beach in a manner consistent with the sprite of the September 12, 2005 Council Resolution
Now therefore be it resolved by the Municipal Council of the Town of Fort Erie that the Crystal Beach Neighbourhood Plan is hereby approved and shall be utilized to guide planning and development in the Crystal Beach Neighbourhood.
The Neighbourhood Plan clearly indicated that "The Vision" of participating residents was for an open, public park.
Instead, this administration, in my opinion, has opted on making the first step towards Mr. Mostacci's vision a reality. A vision never addressed in the Neighbourhood Plan, at our expense and clearly, by his design.
In my mind that leads to another question... Why?
Respectfully, I invite you to respond.
Regards,
John
Great idea. Hope you get lots of interesting comments. Love the picture of the blended flags. That's the true spirit and wonderful thing about Crystal Beach. Regardless of personalities, views on other issues, or nationality, we must all get together to save our public waterfront property. The town is determined to give away an important part of our community. We cannot let this happen!
ReplyDeleteCongratulations and Good Luck with your new blog John.
ReplyDeleteI hope that you enjoy many responsible and productive posts.
Respectfully,
Mighty Mouth
John:
ReplyDeleteYou often state that a "majority is opposed" or "a majority is in favour".
Where are the facts and figures to back up your suppositions?
I use the word "majority" based on my personal experience speaking with different folks throughout Crystal Beach, Fort Erie and the surrounding area. I am amazed at the high ratio of people in favour of keeping all the Bay Beach Park in public ownership as opposed to transferring any ownership to a private concern.
ReplyDeleteWhile it would be GREAT to have an official, non-biased survey done (or better yet a plebiscite on the matter) I am VERY comfortable in using the term. That said, I sincerely welcome any comments contrary to my observations.
One thing is for sure. Anyone with a different view than my own is encouraged to speak their mind here.
That is very intent of this blog.
Thanks for the re:
John
That is the trouble with using such terms as fact when they only opinions. We must travel in different circles because the "majority" of people that I talk to think that the Molinaro project is the door opener to the economic revitalization of Crystal Beach.
ReplyDeleteI respect your right to your personal opinion but it loses some credibility when you enhance it in the manner that you posted.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteFair enough. The absence of an unbiased, scientific survey on the matter leaves open the door for suspicion when anyone, including myself, speaks of "majority". On the other hand I can honestly say that, without question, the vast majority of people I speak with, outside of friends and family,are against the transfer of public park land to the private sector. If that where otherwise I would,without hesitation,acknowledge it.
Please keep in mind I do have friends that are in favour of the Molinaro Plan.
Over a coffee (or a beer) we discuss our views and opinions and do so with respect for each other. From those conversations I can say, again with confidence, we ALL agree that improvement at Bay Beach is needed and NONE of us are opposed to development in Crystal Beach.
When I state that I am opposed to transferring ownership of public property they will counter
with " currently that is the only option available".
That, to me, begs the question... Why ?
Thank you for your posting!
Sincerely,
John
Good luck Mr. McCarthy, I have enjoyed many of your postings. It is really interesting to see that there are now 4 blogs coming out of the Ridgeway/Crystal Beach Area and none down this end of town that I know of.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Bay Beach/Crystal Beach needs to be rejuvinated, but what bothers me is the cookie cutter approach the town takes when it comes to all these plans. It creates a sense of unconnectedness (if that is a word) between the communities. I think that we need to work with one another to rejuvinate all our communities. This will inspire visitors to spend more time in this area once they discover how much there is to see and do.
Forterian
Thanks John. I like your new blog where people can make their views known without fear of being called names or having attempts made to discover identities. We need more of an honest exchange of views. Blind entrenchment on either side of any issue helps noone.
ReplyDeleteHi John, I have 2 comments:
ReplyDelete1. to Mr. Forterian, you are correct, east end and west end do need to communicate and utilize one anothers assets. Perhaps you could contact a Community Group here or post one from Greater Ft. Erie that is very active. I think you would get a good response.
2. Anonymous, 12-20-09 @ 12:19 p.m. regarding for or against/facts and opinions. Perhaps the only real way to determine this is to call a referendum vote.
Just a thought.
Thanks,
Mary Ann Downs
From Anonymous
ReplyDelete"That is the trouble with using such terms as fact when they [are] only opinions."
I suppose you would apply this to members of Council that claim to speak for a
"Silent majority" in regards to the issue ?
-----
"We must travel in different circles because the "majority" of people that I talk to think that the Molinaro project is the door opener to the economic revitalization of Crystal Beach."
No doubt we do speak with many different folks. If I'm drawing the wrong conclusions I'm more than happy to speak to any of your associates ?
As for "economic door opener" respectfully I ask.. for whom and at who's expense ?
John
The economic door opener, IMO, is for all of those who wish to invest in the economic revitalization. Everywhere that major projects are developed ancilliary businesses prosper.
ReplyDeleteAsk any restaurant, bar, souvenir shop, hotel, gas station, etc. if they have not benefited from the revival of the Buffalo Theater District or the HBSC arena or the building of the Rogers Centre or the Air Canada Arena,
For the most part I would agree. HSBC arena perhaps not a great example though. But were any of those built at the expense of losing any publicly owned waterfront property ? If we use other cities experiences as examples, hands down, the NEED for public waterfront access wins every time!
ReplyDeleteWith so much private land nearby why couldn't a developer purchase some of that, build there and leave Bay Beach to be improved by other means?
John
Well John, if I am a private citizen owning a company, I am going to invest my money in a project at the location that I believe will give me the greatest return on my investment.
ReplyDeleteThe Molinaros are simply following that criteria. Like them or not you have to admit that under our free enterprise system that is what they should do. Argue with the town if you choose to but do not blame the Molinaros for being smart business men.
I can't say I have any gripe with The Molinaro Group. They are a very successful firm that builds beautiful structures.
ReplyDeleteMy (and many others) issue is with some members of the current admistration, in town government, that INSIST on "jamming" this project through.
Please, if you would, look over the 2005 Neighbourhood Plan
see link
http://www.town.forterie.ca/WebSite/tofeweb.nsf/0/43BE7D845F2DCFF88525709F00502EC6?OpenDocument
and look for section titled "September 12, 2005Crystal Beach Neighbourhood Plan Approved by Council"
Clearly, the plan, most favoured by participants in the study, is the open park, green space option.
When I see that and then look at how we suddenly wind up with a "Molinaro Plan or NOTHING" option, I have to wonder.
Also of interest is the section titled
"December 5, 2005 Bay Beach Property Decision"
listed just before the latter.
Again, I'm left to wonder why so many key elements of this Council approved plan were never implemented ?
Thanks again for your post!
I think that some people misunderstand how government works. They seem to believe that the governing body must always adhere to the "will of the people". If this were true we would have to have a referendum on every issue.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that governing bodies are elected by the people that believe that their candidate best possesses the knowledge and expertise to make decisions that they believe is best for the people. They are given the mandate to make those hard decisions be they the wishes of the majority or the minority.
Where would we be in the free world if only the wishes of the majority were followed? Would we have any of our basic freedoms? Would we still have discrimination by race, religion, sex or age?
Neither the majority nor the minority is always right. We as electors select those whom we believe can make that determination and by doing so we give them that right.
"Neither the majority nor the minority is always right. We as electors select those whom we believe can make that determination and by doing so we give them that right."
ReplyDeleteThen what was the point of conducting the "Neighbourhood Focus & Planning Study" ?
Would you have the council make decisions without conducting studies?
ReplyDeleteGood conversation going here. I just don't understand the town's "need" to divest itself of public waterfront property. As you suggested, if it were on privately-owned property, it would be a whole different argument. There are many developments either under construction or proposed in Crystal Beach that are perfectly acceptable to everyone, but the proponents label everyone who is against the Molinaro Project on public waterfront property as "anti-development." We're not anti-development; we're against giving away public waterfront property to a high rise developer.
ReplyDelete"Would you have the council make decisions without conducting studies?"
ReplyDeleteCertainly not!
Respectfully, I ask again. What was the point of conducting the "Neighbourhood Focus & Planning Study"?
I do not think that the current council with 4 new members, elected in 2006, is required to adhere to a plan passed by the previous administration in 2005.
ReplyDeleteI suspect there are 4 members of Council that would be inclined to agree with you!!!
ReplyDeleteThat said,it seems then,by default,they're also dismissing, or a least "minimizing", the results of a rather extensive (and expensive) professionally conducted,survey on the matter.
Or perhaps they re-examined the total picture and came to Bob Dylan's conclusion that "The Times They Are a'Changin".
ReplyDeleteIndeed!
ReplyDeleteI have read the Neighbourhood Plan and can not find anything in it to back up your claim that "clearly, the Plan most favoured by participants in the study is the open park greenspace option". What I did find was an entire section (Section 5.6) devoted to the Bay Beach issue, which clearly states that there was NO CONSENSUS REACHED by the Focus Group on what should be done with the property. They did not advocate for one option over another, but laid out recommendations on what amenities should form part of any public or private development on the site. Another thing that seems to have been forgotten (especially by those who are more recent arrivals to Fort Erie)is that the property was purchased in its entirety so that the Town could acquire the beach land. It was always the intention (clearly and openly stated) that the Town would get rid of the remainder of the property in order to get something back for the $2 million public dollars it cost to purchase the entire lot. Where's the surprise here? Nobody ever said it was going to be a park.
ReplyDeleteThank you for reading Neighbourhood Plan my friend !
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected. I have all the reports “saved” incorrectly as one, combined file named “Neighbourhood Plan”. Please accept my sincere apology for any confusion.
The Acknowledgment of “a most favoured” option by participants is found in
Bay Beach Report CDS-153-05 (File# 350313) December 5, 2005
From that I quote:
Concept Plan 3, being the “open space and parking” concept, is the scenario most
favoured by those residents who have appeared before Council and have expressed an
opinion on the matter through the Crystal Beach Neighbourhood Plan. It is the scenario
also endorsed by the Friends of Crystal Beach, who assisted in the preparation of the
Neighbourhood Plan. The main advantages of this scenario include the retention of the
entire property under municipal ownership, the potential for open views to the lake, the
potential for development of the property as a first-class recreational facility, and the
development of a large amount of parking north of Erie Road to accommodate beach
visitors.
Bay Beach Report CDS-153-05 also opens with a Background summary from which you will find the following:
Council authorized the purchase of the property at that time with several objectives clearly outlined and made public:
• Provide public waterfront access resulting in the Town retaining 2 acres of public beach
• Generate an acceptable return on investment
• Change and enhance the image of Crystal Beach as a mixed use destination with
recreational, commercial, and residential/rental accommodation facilities and activities
• Realize a synergy to create investment opportunities for a year-round tourist/recreational
destination
Of particular interest is the second item, “generate an acceptable return”.
It does NOT declare any specific intention of selling (or bartering ownership of) the property.
As for “Nobody ever said it was going to be a park.”
Every option proposed in the study makes reference to creating open, green space to one degree or the other.
To that I add “Nobody ever mentioned any 12 story condos… Nobody”
Respectfully,
John
CONCEPT PLAN B:
ReplyDelete...supported by residents "who appeared before council". What a surprise. Of course those appearing were opposed.
REPORT CDS-153-05:
You use the item "generate an acceptable return" whule conveniently ignoring the term "retaining 2 acres of public beach".
CONCEPT PLAN B:
ReplyDeleteDon't forget "and have expressed an
opinion on the matter through the Crystal Beach Neighbourhood Plan"
REPORT CDS-153-05:
No. That's why I included it in the post. I have come to learn that not including that fact (in just about any discussion) will undoubtedly bring an accusation that I am not telling the whole truth. THANK GOD "retaining 2 acres of public beach" is the one thing that's written in stone. Then again, lord knows I've made some bad assumptions in the past!!!
We two seem to take part in most of the discussion here. Hopefully others both pro and con will join in with some contructive thoughts
ReplyDeleteabout this and other matters of interest.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
And I REALLY appreciate it my friend !
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Let's get some other folks on board.
A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you as well !
Thank you very much.
John
Good Afternoon John:
ReplyDeleteHaving some spare time over the holidays and following your suggestion I spent a great deal of time studying the Crystal Beach Neighbourhood Plan of 2005.
There is a perception by some that this plan places a contruction limitation of three stories for the area known as the "Bay Beach Properties".
I cannot find anything in the plan to support this perception and in fact cannot find anything in the plan that places any height limitation on construction in this area.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where I might find anything in the plan that supports what I believe to be a misconception on the part of some people.
Thank You.
Good Afternoon to you as well:
ReplyDeleteInteresting reading ehh?
With the exception of the town's existing zoning ordinance against building above 3 floors on the site, you are correct.
There is no specific mentioned "limit" in the plan.
Of course when you look at "North Side Development" (option 1) which was the option favoured by staff, one will clearly see maximum heights (2 and 3 story) labeled on all the proposed buildings
with the exception of the existing "Lobster House" and proposed pavillion.
As for any "enlightenment" I highly recommend you speak with some of the residents that actively participated in the planning process.
I have and each that I spoke with has indicated that anything above 3 stories was not supported by anyone involved.
Thank You
John
Thanks John. This confirms my opinion that the 3-storey limit applies only to the sections mentioned in 5.2a2.
ReplyDeletefrom 5.2a2
ReplyDeleteThe Urban Design Guidelines shall address, at minimum, the following key issues (amongst others I didn't add)
• maintaining the small-size character of the area, with structures being one to
three stories in height.
-----
Given the above as stated planning policy I wouldn't want to be arguing, in favour, of your opinion in a court of law. Then again I ain't no lawyer man (lol)
Regards,
John
Well John try taking this to court.
ReplyDelete5.2a2 refers ONLY to the areas designated as "Core Mixed Use Area", "Core Intensification Area" or "Gateway Area". The Bay Beach Properties are not located in any of these three areas.
Fair enough I suppose but isn't this project called "Crystal Beach Gateway" ?
ReplyDeleteAs I said I am not an attorney but wouldn't that suggest this is a "Gateway Area"?
Please John, it is you who told me to read the document.
ReplyDeleteThe "Gateway Area" AS DESCRIBED IN THE 2005 PLAN is located around the intersection by the water tower at the cemetary.
I am fascinated !!!
ReplyDeletePlease continue to educate me on your interpretation of the Neighbourhood Plan.
If you would, please provide a “summary” that explains how the transfer in ownership of any portion of a public, waterfront park, to a private concern, for the construction of a 12 story condominium, fits into the Neighbourhood Plan?
Thank you for the dialogue.
John
I do not "interpret" the neighbourhood plan. I post exactly what is in the plan. The plan is written and approved. Where it sets limits those limits should be enforced. Where no limits are set as to sale, ownership, transfer, construction, etc. the council has the right to make the final decision.
ReplyDeleteThose who are looking for peas in a pumkin patch are the ones "interpreting" when their position is challenged by the truth.
"...the council has the right to make the final decision."
ReplyDelete- Absolutely! That has never been an issue in my book.
"Those who are looking for peas in a pumkin patch are the ones "interpreting" when their position is challenged by the truth."
- I suggest the same can be said for some that support the project.
And you thought we couldn't agree on things?
Health and Happiness in the new year my friend!
John
I am enjoying our dialogue and agree that some on both sides "interpret" for their own benefit.
ReplyDeleteI deal not with vegetables or melons but with the written word.
Enjoy a great year.
Perhaps now is the time for Crystal Beach to step up to the plate and separate from the corporation. We don’t need Fort Erie. We once had our own mayor and council and we can do it again!
ReplyDeleteWhen we joined the corporation in the 70s a clause was put in effect that at any time we were not satisfied with the Town of Fort Erie we could sign off at anytime. When a petition was passed around well over five thousand names were collected and to put it bluntly we do not want this type of development. Take a good look around there are more yellow signs around than Martha Lockwood had votes for office. Trust me when I say this. Within five years if this development goes through we will not have a beach to enjoy! It will be over. We do not need the Town to dictate to us. We can easily do this on our own. In my view Martha Lockwood should be investigated for fraud and her deceitful ways. Crystal Beach can ounce again be its own Village without the influence of the Town Of Fort Erie. Together we can change this plan. Jealousy runs ramped in this town and it must be put to a stop!
All council does anymore is argue and bicker amongst themselves. Tell me how you are supposed to run a town when you can’t even get along. Martha lockwood you are a disgrace to your community. You totally disregarded what your constituents had to say.
You took your job as counselor and used it for your own purpose. Karma will surely strike you down. You cost us taxpayers many thousands of dollars and yet your ears are closed and your nose in the air. I often wonder how you sleep at night
I don't think that separating from the town is a viable option. Just like the town trying to opt out of the region. The money and the infrastructure just isn't there.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that the Town will have a very difficult time getting environmental approval for this structure. Same result the Peace Bridge encountered by failing to conduct proper environmental impact studies and assuming that everyone would be so "thrilled" with their plans that it would be overlooked.
ReplyDeleteThis Project Is DEAD!!!
ReplyDeleteThe OMB ruling in the Toronto waterfront development has sealed their doom.
It is just a matter on administration and (election) now.
Bye bye Dark Towers, you and the council and staff HAVE LOST The people HAVE WON!!
V
I fail to see economic benefits of this except to The Molinaro Group, I really do not believe there will be a substantial increase in "year round living, entertainment, recreation, and natural beauty." It seems to me that natural beauty is best left to nature, maybe we should see 50 or 60 trees planted on the area off the beach, and allow natural vegetation to return to the area. A 12 story building of glass and concrete does not seem at all like a natural attraction to me, except for the migratory birds who will likely die from striking the lighted glass structure that will be an eyesore. This is too close to a lake that all too often shows a ferocious natural side to any structure we are foolish enough to build in its face.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand our willingness to trade away our natural areas for a few extra tax dollars, an area that was paid for by bingo and casino money, let the casinos attract the tourists, let the beach attract the local people who love it and the monarch butterflies and birds and who grace it with their presence.