In regards to the discussion whether or not the proposed condo site is waterfront?
From Fort ErieTimes Bay Beach advertisement found at:
Quote from article…
“The Town has entered a partnership with a major Ontario developer to build high-rise condominiums on waterfront land and create first class amenities for the adjacent public beach”.
I believe the ad clearly illustrates that the proposed construction site is, without question, waterfront land.
Switching gears, if I may?
Further on in the same ad, Jim Thibert, General Manager of the Fort Erie EDTC, makes reference to the success that The Molinaro Group has had in Burlington. Indeed they have. There is NO question in my mind, that this firm builds magnificent, quality buildings. Involving them in a project for Fort Erie is nothing to sneeze at.
With that understood I would respectfully ask Mr. Thibert this question.
How much publicly owned, waterfront park land was transferred to private ownership in any of the redevelopment projects on Burlington’s waterfront?
I ask because frankly I don’t know the answer.
To me, when one looks at the comparative size of Burlington’s Spencer Smith Park & adjoining Beachway Park vs. Crystal Beach Town Park, it seems evident that we should be assertive when it comes to redistributing ownership of our public waterfront.
Finally. I have to say that discussion on this blog, especially with the supporters of the current Bay Beach proposal has been, in my mind, truly a PLEASURE !
I sincerely look forward to more of the same in the future and to you, our Canadian Friends…
THANK YOU for the being such gracious hosts!
I can only hope you understand how much we appreciate the privilege of being part of this wonderful community.
John
As far as I am concerned, the Town met its commitment to acquire access to the lake when it purchased the beach from the Bay Beach Corporation. As part of the deal, the Town also purchased the uplands and the parking lots. From what I understand, it was an all-or-nothing deal for $2 million. As I also understood the debate at the time, the Town's intention was to spin off part of the non-beach land to recoup at least some of the purchase cost.
ReplyDeleteTo me, $2 million is a lot of money, especially for a municipal facility that is used for a few months in the summer and which provides part-time residents the opportunity to enjoy their vacation home, and who fire up full-time residents with untrue statements, first, that the Town is giving away the beach, then that the town is going to restrict access, and now finally, it's giving away waterfront land.
Well, the Town spent another half million dollars to tear down those derelict cottages (there were 60 or so units), build a berm to prevent erosion of sand onto the road and into the storm sewers (a problem for years), build a pay parking lot for $100,000 with net return of about $20,000 a year, provide security for about $40,000 a year, and to undertake studies on what to do with the dance hall (which was torn down because it was derelict), the lobster house and to provide concession space and washrooms and other things.
From what I understand of this argument against the Molinaro proposal is the Town should keep all the land, pour in more money to build facilities and to allow free (no charge) access to 1,000 feet of Town-owned beach.
The Town's position, as I understand it, is that it will trade some of the uplands portion of the waterfront land in return for the construction of public facilities and a residential development that will increase the tax base by whatever the assessment would be on waterfront condominiums. That is not exactly "giving away."
Could the same be said about Waverly Beach? It has a lot of the same things as Bay Beach but, so far, it is not under discussion for sale or a P-3. Why not? Better location for full-time residents and it even has a better view? Why was all that money pored into fixing that up? Grants and corporate sponsors paid for the rehab of Waverly Beach. Why not Bay Beach? The recommendation in the C.A.U.S.E. Study was to sell off upland portions on the north side of Erie Road in order to buy more waterfront property. There was no mention of selling/giving the land to a developer to build a 12 story high rise. Even Wayne Redekop agreed later that the parking lots should remain in the public hands and it was an initiave of the Friends of Crystal Beach, IIRC, that the parking lots charge for admission. I have no problem with charging a small admission to the beach once it's fixed up. There is so much potential there for a great place that people could enjoy all year 'round. Parking lot skating rinks, ice fishing derbies, and the Polar Bear Dip could be moved there if a proper pavillion was built - not by the Molinaros, but local contractors for the public. Most of us are willing to fund raise to see it become a reality - like the Waterfront Park, which, BTW, almost didn't happen. The town almost sold that land to the developer of the CBTYC. The CBTYC has proved to be a big mistake for the town. Set back Crystal Beach for almost twenty years. If the town had bought the property and worked with the province back then to build a first-class park there, Crystal Beach would have recovered a long time ago. It's coming back, but one 12 story condo is not going to do it. Hard work and support of the business owners in Crystal Beach will. Commercial units on the beach, competing with established businesses in Crystal Beach will do nothing for them. And the myth that the condo dwellers will live here full time is just that - a myth. Like the one they tried earlier about "aging in place."
ReplyDeleteAccording to the start of this thread the Molinaro project will include:
ReplyDeleteYear round public viewing pavilion
Concessions
Indoor amenities
Outdoor plaza
Beachwalk promenade
Pedestrian avenue
Landscaped islands
Generous greenery
Natural vegetation
All open for public use and just the things the anti-group has clamoured for for years.
"Commercial units on the beach, competing with established businesses in Crystal Beach will do nothing for them".
ReplyDeleteWhat's next a sign at the water tower that "No new commercial businesses allowed in Crystal Beach"
The Waterfront Pavilion is in fact a unit on the main floor facing Erie Rd. on the North east corner.
ReplyDeleteYear round public viewing pavilion
ReplyDeleteConcessions
Indoor amenities
Outdoor plaza
Beachwalk promenade
Pedestrian avenue
Landscaped islands
Generous greenery
Natural vegetation
-------------------
I suggest these are all possible without transferring ownership of any of the publicly owned land to private ownership.
Let me ask you this.
What if The Region and The Town were to negotiate a deal that called for "joint" ownership of the Bay Beach site with both, not only allocating funds for maintenance/operations, but also sharing revenues (parking/concessions)?
Let's call it a "Public-Public Partnership".
Add to that an ALL volunteer group dedicated to assisting this new partnership in securing grants and sponsorships (government & corporate) all geared towards constructing the items you’ve listed?
Using the “new and improved” Crystal Beach Town/Regional Park as an anchor to the west, private developers could concentrate their expertise on redeveloping the Derby, Erie, Ridgeway (South) Rds. corridor as the commercial/residential focal point it should be. With the existing Waterfront Park anchoring the east end of the corridor I believe we could recoup the towns original $2 million investment many times over.
Your Thoughts?
Those amenities are great, but the "price" is too high: a twelve story condo that will be the start of the ruination of our waterfront, IMHO. The community has not received any support in getting grants or funding to rehab Bay Beach. Instead, since the property was purchased, there was a concerted effort to "flip" it, starting in early 2002. Back then, the north side portions were to be sold to fund a section of the Friendship Trail. Fortunately, the people were successful in stopping that with a petition and numerous delegations to council.
ReplyDeleteWell, Mrs. Editor you are entitled to your opinion. IMHO you offer no more on this blog than you do on your own. A condominium "that will start the ruination of Crystal Beach". Can you offer any substantive proof that this is true. Of course not. As usual you add nothing factual but just run around hollering that the sky is falling. People have left your blog to come over here for rational, intelligent discussion. Please go home before you contaminate this blog with your venemous diatribes.
ReplyDeleteI've posted the above comments with this "friendly reminder". We will remain civil!
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" has stated a "reasonable" gripe with Sharon's post but his desire to see here not comment on this blog gets close to "the line".
Please. Let's keep this thing void of childish behavior.
Respectfully,
John McCarthy
Thanks for setting the tone of this blog - again. What I see as the "ruination of Crystal Beach" is not exactly provable unless one were to look at what other waterfront communities have done and learn from their mistakes or their triumphs. As I stated, it is my opinion, shared by many others, that if one high rise condo is built, it will set an alarming precedent that will ultimately lead to other condos being built along the shore as waterfront properties become available. If this is what you envision for the future of Crystal Beach, then that's what you'll get if the zoning change is allowed. Over and above that, I do not want to see any portion of the public properties known as the Bay Beach Properties developed into residential housing. I want to see it remain public and be fixed up with amenities by and for the people. I think Grand Bend is a perfect example of what can be done when a community gets behind the initiative to improve its public waterfront properties. While the Molinaro Project looks fine and has a lot of attractive components, it is, IMHO, not a good fit for the character and uniqueness of Crystal Beach.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, if private owners along the beachfront want to develop or sell to developers their properties for the construction of condos what would be the reaction of the public?
ReplyDeleteWould there still be such a hue and cry or would they support the guiding democratic principle of free enterprise?
Since you bring up Grand Bend as a perfect example, do you include the Grand Bend Motorplex featuring drag racing, stock car racing on an oval, motorcycle racing and ... Big Rig Racing?
ReplyDelete"I wonder, if private owners along the beachfront want to develop or sell to developers their properties for the construction of condos what would be the reaction of the public?"
ReplyDeleteIn my book that's a fair question. My answer...
All the more reason to insure an open/publicly owned waterfront park, directly adjacent to the open/public beach. If "economic forces" create momentum in the direction of existing private property owners selling "bundled" waterfront properties to large scale developers, that I suppose, would be for some, a different battle for a different day.
According to some in the current administration, the existing low density, residential model we now see along Abino Bay is unsustainable. Well, not being an expert in the field, I have to ask, if this is in fact the case, why would the Town find it necessary to commit to a deal that transfers ownership of any public property, to a private owner, to facilitate "a trend" that is considered inevitable by the experts anyway?
To that I add...
Is the proposed Bay Beach project an attempt to somehow "jump start" this "predicted trend" or is it perhaps an attempt to make it a "self fulfilling prophecy" ?
I simply don’t know.
What I do know, speaking strictly for myself, is the land currently owned by the Corporation of the Town of Fort Erie, known as The Bay Beach Properties, is just that, owned by the Corporation of the Town of Fort Erie. That being the case, residents don’t need any easements or “special understandings” with private co-owners for ANYTHING.
Elected representatives, elected by Canadians, call ALL the shots. It’s a public beach and it’s a public park.
Though I can’t vote I sure as hell can live with that!!!
Sincerely,
John
You sound like Mark McGwire. Way to NOT answer the question?
ReplyDeleteWhile I certainly can't answer for the "public" I believe I did offer an opinion.
ReplyDeleteI'll take a stab at answering your questions.
ReplyDelete"Why would the Town find it necessary to commit to a deal that transfers ownership of any public property, to a private owner, to facilitate "a trend" that is considered inevitable by the experts anyway?"
There's two answers to that. First, that was the deal when the town bought the property: sell off the non-beach lands to recoup the purchase costs or at least realize economic return on investment. Nobody wanted the town to get into the long-term costs associated with running a beach park, especially since the entire 4.5 acres of land was taken off the tax rolls when it was purchased. It was zoned commercial and that is a tax rate 2.5 times the residential rate. Multiply that by the assessment (we can only go by the actual sale value of $2 million) and that's a significant amount of revenue loss to the town. Add the revenue loss to the ongoing maintenance and security costs and you have a dollar figure for what it is costing the town every year. Also include the $2 million purchase price because it is money that can't be spent elsewhere, like roads and sewers and splashpads.
I suspect the Bay Beach Corporation wanted to rid itself of the tax burden because of the market value assessment. A realtor I spoke to suggested properties farther down Erie Road are worth $24,000 per foot of frontage. There's 400 feet at Bay Beach. That's $9.6 million. The part that Molinaro wants to build (less than half of the uplands portion that is being used for parking right now) might be worth $4 million, probably less because it doesn't include private beach, but it is right near a public beach, however.
Secondly, nobody wants to be the first to establish this kind of development for a couple of reasons. One being there is a high-level of risk in submitting a development plan, and this helps to establish an acceptable template. The other being that nobody who owns property down there wants to go through the abuse the Molinaros and the town have gone through so far.
It takes exactly the same amount of physical infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, drainage) to service a single residential property as it does to service a multiple residential property. Therefore, the per capita cost to provide municipal services is reduced.
Access to the beach right now is through a three-foot wide gate and about 20 feet between the concession stand and the concrete retaining wall. Under the plan, the physical access will be the entire east half of the property.
For me personally, if this proposed development were on private land, it would be much different. High density housing, or at least, higher density housing then we're used to is coming to Fort Erie. My issue in that case would be the size, I think 12 stories is too high, and I think it opens the floodgates too wide, but I do think it could be good and could be done on a smaller scale, albeit much bigger than we're currently accustomed to. My issue with this "Molinaro" development is size, as mentioned, but most importantly, of giving up public property for private development. I think we open up a pandoras box by waiving development charges, paying for environmental studies, allowing 12 stories and becoming a principal in the development as opposed to simply a governing body. I believe it creates a conflict of interest and makes it difficult to be objective. I believe that if we use the redevelopment of that site for all public amenities to create a first class park, waterfront pavilion, washrooms, splash pad/skating rink...it will let visitors, residents and these potential new residents that we so crave know that Fort Erie is doing it differently, that our Town values it's waterfront, and recreation, and quality of life, thereby further cementing for them that Fort Erie is a great place to live, which in turn will foster an enviroment and become a catalyst which will lead to private commercial and residential development in Crystal Beach and throughout Fort Erie. I just think we deserve better than a monolithic building that was no doubt originally designed to sit on the shores of Lake Ontario in Burlington...
ReplyDeleteJust a quick point regarding the last point of the post dated at 1:10pm regarding access to the beach only being 3ft...
ReplyDeleteI think it's unfair to compare what Bay Beach is now, to what it could be under the Molinaro Plan (respectfully...your opinion) without comparing what Bay Beach is now to what it could be using a more public redevelopment approach (respectfully...my opinion) Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges because we all agree the status quo is not an option.
Good conversation by the way...very respectful.
Cheers.
Let us assume that the anti-Molinaro's are successful and the project is turned down.
ReplyDeleteSince this sort of project seems to be the "trend" we could end up with the same type of project located within 100 feet of the proposed Molinaro project. This would be completely private for members only and would have almost the same impact on the area. Of course we would not have all of the amenities listed.
People, the day is coming when the beachfront will be lined with condos. I think we should take the millions of dollars of free public ammenities.
Was the Grand Bend Motorplex built on waterfront beach land or adjacent to waterfront beach land? Was a $4 million dollar piece of land (a number I read above) given to the developer in exchange for washrooms and other amenities worth far less? Did Grand Bend waive development charges for that project?
ReplyDeletePlease read this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.yourhome.ca/homes/realestate/article/747980--locals-win-battle-with-builder
Your post leads back to development on private land vs. development on public land, which for me personally...is a different animal. In your scenario you laid out, the anti-Molinaro people are successful...and work begins on redeveloping Bay Beach with strictly public amenities...a waterfront pavilion (facing the water), boardwalk, perhaps a building for a restaurant, snack bar and washrooms, parking, splash pad, etc. Developers see this and wish to acquire land to the east or west. If it's the east, the beach is already public, and we would not lose any potential access as we do not have any between Schooley and Ashwood as it is. Plus, in any future waterfront development I believe the Town has stated that they'll be looking for concessions regarding public access in exchange for rezoning, etc., as to not make another CBTYC gated mistake. Now I'd still have a problem with 12 stories but perhaps a comprimise could be made (5-7 stories) The developer would no doubt have to pay for an environmental impact study, and development charges out of his/her own pocket. In that case we could potentially have the best of both worlds. If they wish to develop to the west, where the beach is private...the Town quietly passed a by-law last year requiring any private waterfront development to make the beach public in exchange for zoning changes, etc. So in that case we would have the Public amenities at Bay Beach as well as additional public beach as well as the economic benefit of a high density development. I agree, higher density housing is coming...
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify your last statement..."I think we should take the millions of dollars of free public amenities" Respectfully...I believe we'd be paying a very high price for these "free" developments.
I think that the Molinero Proposal will end up being an election issue in this ward. The common threads of objection seem to be the size of the building along with the reduced access to the waterfront/beach.
ReplyDeleteIs there room for compromise regarding this proposal from both sides? Although we don't like it, high density housing has a smaller carbon footprint than a subdivision of bungalows. A twelve storey condo, however really doesn't fit in with the rest of the community.
Google "Sustainable Waterfront Development" and see what you find. Here are a few links that I found interesting:
http://www.sjwaterfront.com/saint_john_waterfront_development_vision/guiding_principles.html
http://www.waterfront-net.org/services/documents.htm
http://www.exploredryden.ca/photos/custom/Documents/Dryden%20Waterfront%20Presentation%20Sept.pdf
With all the links being placed in the posts, just a reminder that, by default, the "blogspot" format requires you to copy/paste the given links into the "address bar".
ReplyDeleteTHANK YOU for the posts !!!
John
Personally, I don't want to spend another cent of public money on the beach. I'm tired of everything supposed to be a "catalyst" for something else. I would like the "something else" for a change. And the something else being, in this case, a high-density, tax-paying development. Even better would be a commercial development such as a hotel. Nothing is going to generate economic activity like a hotel beside a fabulous beach in a town with a horse racing track, a speedway, internationally-renowned museums, just down the road from the Falls, across the river from the Bills and Sabres and within driving distance of half the population of North America.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that going from 2 towers to 1 tower is 50% compromise on behalf of the Molinaro group.
Where is the reciprocal compromise on behalf of those opposed?
“Nobody wanted the town to get into the long-term costs associated with running a beach park, especially since the entire 4.5 acres of land was taken off the tax rolls when it was purchased.”
ReplyDeleteThe whole reason behind the purchase was in fact to have the Town establish a “beach park” and sell the non-beach portions, according to then Mayor Wayne Redekop “with a view to using the money to purchase further waterfront properties to increase the access to our beaches, something that I believe is part of the birth-right of everyone born in this area. A further objective was to drive the rejuvenation of Crystal Beach. That former objective seems to have been lost over the past few years, although the latter seems to be taking place, in part because of the acquisition of Bay Beach, but also because of the other significant investments the Town has made in infrastructure and the substantial efforts of local residents, such as you. I look forward to what is undoubtedly a bright and prosperous future for Crystal Beach. Thank you for choosing to be a part of”.
A quid pro quo involving property in exchange for amenities was never mentioned.
I believe Mayor Redekop, as well as the Council of the day, understood that residents clearly wanted all the property to remain in public ownership. It was staff, time after time, that argued otherwise.
“Secondly, nobody wants to be the first to establish this kind of development for a couple of reasons. One being there is a high-level of risk in submitting a development plan, and this helps to establish an acceptable template. The other being that nobody who owns property down there wants to go through the abuse the Molinaros and the town have gone through so far”.
Then you agree that this current proposal is a means to “jump start” the "predicted trend" in transformation from low density to high density residential development along Abino Bay?
As for any “abuse” directed at The Town or the Molinaro Group, I don’t think respectful opposition to the proposal qualifies as abusive? Even the most ardent supporters of the proposal have solicited the public’s input.
Your thoughts?
John
The proposal is not a "means" to jump start anything. The condo-style development is coming regardless of what happens with this project.
ReplyDeleteThis type of high density residences will revitalize the Beach so that it becomes more than 4 bars and a Tim Hortons.
I think that the development will be beneficial for Crystal Beach and the town as a whole.
ReplyDeleteCertainly this type of development will encourage business to move into town like a grocery store, bank, pharmacy, etc.
And as far as the whole town goes, it might just be the factor that will bring our hospital back to full service.
Whether the Town takes cash for the sale of the non-beach land or accepts a "quid pro quo," as you put it, it's the same thing. But the value of money is in what it can purchase. So instead of cash, which would likely be used to develop the park, the Town takes the construction of public amenities in exchange for the land.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Town established the waterfront reserve to acquire beachfront, it had nothing in Crystal Beach except the land at the Palmwood and some road allowances. Since then, it has accumulated 1,000 feet of prime beach. To my thinking, there is no need to acquire more. Now we must capitalize on the asset.
You give Town staff way too much credit for being able to impose their will on Council, and it's a common complaint of people who think that behind every issue there is a sinister ulterior motive and of councillors who are, let's just say, less than attentive.
As far as jump starting, sure, why not? A little-known condition of any new waterfront development is that a developer will be required to dedicate the beach to the Town and that there would have to be public access to the beach. So the choice is between a bunch of five-acre estate cottages with private beaches as exists now or high-density developments with public beaches.
Of course it will be a needed jump start. Just like new shopping malls where you need a few large box stores to attract the remainder of investors. The success of the project will spur off site investments.
ReplyDeleteIn hindsight it would have been better if the town never even bought the beach and someone else did and could do whatever the want with it
ReplyDeleteNow that may go down in history as the most ridiculous post on this blog.
ReplyDeleteWhat, no sinister ulterior motive ? Hell there goes all the fun ! (lol)
ReplyDeleteI apologize if my statement “It was staff, time after time, that argued otherwise” seemed to suggest anything “sneaky” ?
The intent was to bring attention to recommendations by staff that, in my view, seem contrary to Mayor Redekop’s quoted statement.
To the poster that brought this to my attention. You certainly have some compelling arguments but respectfully, I think these also move us away from what many folks see as the “proper direction”.
Quoting your post:
“A little-known condition of any new waterfront development is that a developer will be required to dedicate the beach to the Town and that there would have to be public access to the beach. So the choice is between a bunch of five-acre estate cottages with private beaches as exists now or high-density developments with public beaches.”
As I understand it, you are correct in regards to public access to the beach as a condition of development. No doubt, this is a wonderful thing! Thanks for bringing it up. To the latter part of your post, the choices you present, in my mind, reinforce the necessity in retaining all the public parkland we currently have. Whether development starts along the bay or not, obtaining any more of it will just be to expensive.
As for your desire to “capitalize on the asset”. I hear you my friend but let’s not, in terms of time, turn or waste into haste. I think we’re only going to get one shot at this.
I sincerely hope everyone involved with this forum is enjoying the exchange as much as I am.
Thank you,
John
I'm sorry that you find my post ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI'll keep my opinions to myself.
Some may or may not find your comment ridiculous but I'll tell you that it's NOT the first time I've heard it.
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to speak your mind !
All I ask is we keep it respectful & civil (and of course be prepared for criticism)
John
I would like to know why someone thinks the post is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the post is NOT ridiculous. It was short and to the point. Let me expand on it for the poster if I may.
ReplyDeleteSuppose the town decided not to buy the property and an individual or developer bought it. What would we have ....... NO beach ....period.
The town did buy it and stated from the beginning that it would be selling off a portion of it defer the costs. If the project goes throuh, the community will still have access to the entire beach. They would have state of the art facilities on the beach surrounded by enviromentally friendly green spaces, paved walkways, a pavilion.
Recently, there was a lot whining and crying about the Thunder Bay Golf course property. It was stated that the town should buy it. It didn't .... look at it now. It was even suggested that the town buy it and scale down the golf course to 9 holes. What was suggested for the rest ..... homes .... I don't know .... I didn't make the suggestion.
Is this not unlike what is happening with Bay beach?
Some, or one has suggested that the condo be built at Waverly Beach. Guess it one of these NIMBY things and not a real concern for the community as a whole.
So the post that the town should never have bought the property is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI've never been much of a blogger, there seems to be far too many emotional and opinionated responses for my liking. That being said, I find it interesting that some speak of "Free enterprise development" in reference to a project that seems not so enterprising on the part of the developers, but certainly "free." The Town asserts that it is a high priority to acquire beach access and after letting the Crystal Beach Amusement Park slip through their hands then "Marcy's Woods", only the good intentions of the Rebstock family brought this gem of a property to Town Ownership, and lets not forget where the money came from, Tourists who chose to play Bingo, or wager at the slots or casinos. What I object to is that we got this property for practically nothing, why should we give it away? This beach is a fine wonderful south facing sandy beach on shallow fresh water with sandy bottom as far as you can walk out. A finer piece of beach is not to be found anywhere and our Town has already increased the posibility of erosion by removing the little dock, that they could probably never get environmental approval to replace, this has already resulted in the loss of hundreds of square feet of beach. In addition to this the Town has been removing sand from the beach, which may or may not be an environmental violation, and trucking it away to another location. Now they wonder why we question the wisdom of giving this valuable beach away to this grand improvement of adding 87 seasonal residents to this community? I moved here 20 years ago, as a full time resident, I bought a seasonal cottage and invested my time and effort into making a year round home out of it. My mother did the same, within sight of this property but yet we're beyond the required notice area of properties within 120 meters. The question I would like to have answered is this, will any beach frontage be set aside for exclusive use of the condo purchasers? I have never heard an answer to this specific question, just vague references to the Town's intent to acquire and keep beach property free for public use, well, how much, and for whom? Answers, not evasive political doublespeak might satisfy my cynicism.
ReplyDeleteThe taxbase in this town has been growing by leaps and bounds. Hundreds of new homes have been built in the last few years, year round homes that do have a year round impact on the economy. Giving away the best little beach in Ontario for 87 seasonal residents is of little value to the community, the Walmart alone probably pays much more in taxes than the total valuation of this small parcel. Lets keep our best asset for future generations to enjoy what Crystal Beach always was, a summer beach destination.
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem ..... what Crystal Beach WAS.
ReplyDeleteLook at it today. Yes, when the park was here, it was fantastic. But it's gone, and the little cottages built around the amusement park town are falling into disrepair, it's embarrasing.
The town needs to grow. The beach is NOT being given away as some may want you to believe.
As for Walmart .... the worst thing that ever happened to Fort Erie, and numerous other towns throughout North America.
The question has to be asked. Should these activist groups succeed in stopping this project, what do they have planned for Crystal Beach?
ReplyDeleteI would like to be rich enough to state that $2,000,000.00 is "next to nothing".
ReplyDelete"The question has to be asked"
ReplyDeleteI posted this a couple of hours ago.
http://yellowpikes.blogspot.com/2010/01/plan-b.html
Thanks for asking!!!
John
"The question I would like to have answered is this, will any beach frontage be set aside for exclusive use of the condo purchasers? I have never heard an answer to this specific question, just vague references to the Town's intent to acquire and keep beach property free for public use, well, how much, and for whom?"
ReplyDeleteYou asked that question of town staff or the Molinaros and you did not get an answer? That is categorically untrue. That is what I am talking about that is "abuse."
The answer is none. It's in the planning documents, the site plan proposal and everything the town has printed or posted on the web. The beach lands are not on the table at all. Look at the drawings and you will see exactly the land that is in question. There is nothing vague or evasive about it at all.
I respectfully disagree, their language is couched in the type of doublespeak reminiscent of Bill Clinton when he said "depends what the definition of is is" They have not explicitely stated that no beach will be reserved, just that they will not reduce the amount of beach well, they've already done that, and if they "ADD" more beach by removing the sand hill, well they're free to take the frontage aren't they, without "reducing" the beach. Sorry I am cynical and do not trust the public proclamations and assurances of politicians, they are too frequently proven wrong by history. So lets have some straight talk, plain language I can point out several evasive, or at least incomplete statements in their advertisements, errors of omission can also be turned around later, Show me where in their statements they have said that no beach will be reserved for the condo, I have never seen that statement. Maybe I missed it, show me without accusatory statements about what is "true" and what is abuse in your opinion? Show me that statement of fact. I'll pull some of the confusing language for you, a little homework assignment.
ReplyDeleteJust to back up a few posts- there is a plan in development for Waverly Beach as well.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the problem is that Fort Erie/Stevensville/Ridgeway/Crystal Beach has been slated as an area to grow both industrially and residentially. This decision was brought forth from the Regional Council who is directed by the Green Belt report as well. If you look at the Green Belt boundary- we are left outside. Why do you ask? The consultants who worked on it said that an economic value could not be attached to the natural areas!
If you are truly against this development-then you need to look at regulations set out from the MNR, Region, DFO, NPCA, etc when it comes to waterfront development.
This will probably end up at the OMB along with the car track proposal anyhow.
If the town had worked with groups like the FOCB, we would not be in danger of losing our public waterfront property. People have any number of ideas, many based on the Grand Bend project, although scaled down to the size of the property. Community groups who want to fix up Bay Beach have been marginalized by the town since the property was bought in 2001. Remember, it was early in 2002 that the council considered selling off the north properties to fund the Friendship Trail. Since then, it has been a fight to keep the property off the selling block. The town has been wearing us down. Many of us knew that they would not give up until the property was sold or developed. They have taken what was a great "gift" from the Rebstock Family and deliberately allowed it to go to ruin, "engineered blight" and then said it would cost too much to rehab. The Crystal Beach community has shown time and time again that it will rise to the occasion e.g. Waterfront Park and the Albert Storm Playground, Queen's Circle. The town planner came up with the $3 million figure to fix up the property to justify sending out "invitations" to developers to develop the property. This is from a town planner who does not live in Fort Erie and has a history with the Molinaros. It can be done in increments, with the most important issues dealt with first.
ReplyDeleteFirst page of the introduction to the planning justification report: "That all beach areas remain in public ownership, and public access be provided through the site to the public beach."
ReplyDeleteSome people keep bringing up Grand Bend. I wonder how many of them have ever been to Grand Bend. I vacationed there for 15 summers and the situation is not the same. Grand bend is a narrow but very long beach. Their boardwalk are will be impressive for that very reason---it is long. Not many people are going to drive to Bay Beach to take a 400' walk.
ReplyDeleteActually the main feature of the Grand Bend shoreline is not the beach but the world class marina with lots of slips to berth both boats of many sizes. It is large enough to even have Canadian Custom facilities.
My reference to Grand Bend is based on the fact that a community can successfully finance a $3.5 million beach/waterfront park improvement project, using “ a different” concept. It is not based on geographic similarities other than we do have a public beach/waterfront park. Please take a look at the presentation found at the link below.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lambtonshores.ca/Docs/StrategicPlan2020-2030.pdf
A key component of this "Master Plan" is "The Beach Enhancement Project" which is the $3.5 million project I mentioned above. It’s financed through available government grants and community fund raising.
Regards,
John
Well, I do see $275,000.00 in proposed community funding toward a $3,500,000.00 project.
ReplyDeleteAccording to The Editor of this blog (is it John McCarthy?), the town planner has a history with the Molinaros. Could you please explain this history?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that is the latest information I can find thus far.
ReplyDelete$1.5 million of the $3.5 million cost is being sought through fund raising and grants. The remaining $2 million balance is financed through an arrangement between all levels of government including the municipality. I should have included that in my quote “ it’s financed through available government grants and community fund raising” in regards to “The Master Plan”. Clearly my mistake.
I certainly understand your “show me the money” attitude about the concept, frankly I couldn’t agree more. The point though is the CONCEPT.
The actual amenities of their “Beach Enhancement Project”, as I understand it, were completed this spring/summer. People were using the additional parking/splash pad/etc. this past summer, so it seems they did something right?
What I’m advocating is, before we commit to the current Bay Beach proposal is, let’s be damned sure we’ve looked at all reasonable options available to us.
Your Thoughts?
John
"The Editor" profile is Sharon Bowers from The Crystal Beach Strand.
ReplyDeleteThe Editor of this blog is John McCarthy. You will never see me post as "The Editor".
Kapeesh ?
John
If I understand right, The Editor is just a user name. Usually Editor is reserved for someone who is responsible for a blog, so I made that assumption. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteSo it is Sharon Bowers who said that the planner has a past history with the Molinaros. What was the nature of this history? I'd really like to know.
You got it kiddo!!! No apology required.
ReplyDeleteBelieve me when I tell you I will never post as... "The Editor".
lol
John
Is it then your belief that you are damned sure that the town "never" looked at all the reasonable options available.
ReplyDelete"We wouldn't be doing our jobs as a council if we didn't investigate all the possibilities that are out there"
ReplyDeleteThe above quote was made by Councilor Martha Lockwood, someone I consider a friend as well as the elected representative of ward 5. What I know is, I completely agree with the statement. What I believe is, taxpayers have a right to hold people in public office accountable for their statements, as well as their actions.
As to the question about Mostacci having a "history" with the Molinaros, it was referenced last April when, at a Fort Erie council meeting, I, and others heard Vince Molinaro say that he looked forward to working with Mostacci again. At the recent Open House, on camera, Vince Molinaro reportedly stated that He and Mostacci had worked on a project in Stoney Creek. Since a local woman was threatened with a lawsuit for writing something similar to that in a Letter to the Editor. She has since been forced to write a retraction. Mostacci has threaened me with a lawsuit and demnded retractions from at least two newspaper, saying he was misquoted regarding statements he made, one of which was that the town had applied for grants to fix up the Bay Beach Properties. but were "unsuccessful." The truth is that the town hasn't, to anyone's knowledge applied for grants for the Bay Beach Properties.
ReplyDeleteYou have posted that before but it does not answer my above question. Do you damned well believe that they did or didn't?
ReplyDeleteWell then, show the money. You point at Grand Bend, and there is huge commitment of community fundraising there. If the FOCB can raise money to protest, it can raise money to do what they want for Bay Beach. Since 2001 when this became an issue, how much money has been raised?
ReplyDeleteReally?! What newspapers were they? Can I read them online?
ReplyDeleteI saw a show on the cable channel when I was flipping around this afternoon about the beach open house and Vince Molinaro talking but he didn't say anything like that. I didn't see the whole show so maybe he said it earlier in the program. Hopefully they'll post the show on the internet because I keep watching and the show didn't come back.
ReplyDelete....and of course you were "flippin around" and don't remember the channel just like other people don't remember what newspapers. Once again "full of sound and fury and signifying nothing".
ReplyDeleteSome members of the anti-Molinaro group are trumpeting the fact that the OMB rejected a condo in the Neville Park area of Toronto even going so far as to say it is "precedent setting".
ReplyDeleteWhat they aren't trumpeting is the fact that in that case the project was not only opposed by well-heeled residents who hired a $70,000.00 lawyer but also by the CITY PLANNER.
I would suggest that this ruling would have no effect on the local situation should it ever come before the OMB.
I would respectfully remind you that "anti-Molinaro" is the term you chose. I know I've stated several times that I have no argument with The Molinaro Group. As far as I'm concerned their a good outfit that's been invited to give The Town of Fort Erie a bid on a possible proposal. Simple as that.
ReplyDeleteJohn
John:
ReplyDeleteI am previously aware of your position vis-a-vis the Molinaros. There is however a loose knit group that seizes on anything that happens regarding building projects anywhere and twists it to suit their own agenda. They are also quite capable at spreading unproven "he said/she said" rumours.
Got your Haiti 50/50 tickets yet?
No question there are "extreme opinions" on BOTH sides of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteNo.I'll have to wait until the weekend to get my tickets. Glad you reminded me though! Need to put it in Special Events.
Seeing the suffering and devastation in Haiti, should perhaps, remind all of us of our priorities. Being able to work together is what's driving the ability of our two nations to bring assistance to those that need it.
God help 'em.
"Well then, show the money"
ReplyDeleteI apologize for posting this so late. I JUST found it.
As to the question about how much $ has FOCB raised ? I do not know. I am not a member of the organization. I amm sure though, it is a matter of public record.
Sorry,
John
The reason that we come off sounding like we're against the Molinaros is that we are against their proposal for the Bay Beach Properties. Their name and their reputation for building fine high rises is not the issue. They were chosen to go ahead on their proposal. They are in the business of building high rises and making money. Nothing wrong with that. But they represent what our town planner and others decided was "good for us." As to the FOCB, they are a community group that has done a lot to bring people into the area and restore a sense of pride in the community. They are working hard to save a very important part of the community from being given away to a high rise developer. In hindsight, we all had become complacent, thinking that the Neighbourhood Plan of 2005 protected the Bay Beach Properties from just what we're going through now.
ReplyDelete