At the November public meeting of council last night I was the lone vote against a Heritage Board resolution approving new tennis courts for Victoria Park. Today, Dave Stewart from the Guardian emailed and asked why I opposed. Here is my reply, some of which you may read verbatim in an upcoming edition of the newspaper:
Last night’s resolution on the tennis courts was a recommendation from Heritage Board (of which I’m a member). This recommendation was required because Victoria Park is now a designated Heritage resource. Heritage Board recommended approval of the tennis courts, but only by a bare majority — the board was almost evenly split. Also, while campaigning throughout my ward last year, and at recent public meetings on this issue, I heard from many residents who were opposed to any further development or construction in Victoria Park. I knew the resolution would pass easily, so I voted against the resolution because a 10-0 vote would not have been representative of public opinion on the matter. There are many divergent views on what Victoria Park should, and should not be and there was certainly opposition to the construction of these new courts.
I always use Point Pleasant Park in Halifax as a good example of what I’d like to see happen at Victoria Park. In 2005, Halifax held an International Design Competition for Point Pleasant Park. It was very comprehensive, with a jury, technical review team, public consultations, etc. The winning design took into consideration the three main components of the park; cultural history, natural history, and recreation. And it stressed the importance of design and long-term planning. The winning submissions from that competition are now being rolled into a larger Master Plan for Point Pleasant Park.
I think there is an appetite for this kind of process for Victoria Park. The recent Parks Master Plan was a high-level plan for all of our parks resources, but I think Victoria Park needs to be treated individually, since it’s our “crown jewel”. It could really be an incredible landmark for the city, but it falls just a bit short currently, in my opinion, mostly because of poor design and planning. Gary Schneider’s forest management plan was a great step forward ecologically, but that needs to be a part of a greater plan.
I have nothing against tennis. I used to be very good at it.
I guess my offer to quote anything in my email was not taken up. There was a very brief sidebar item in today’s Guardian about the tennis court decision. No mention of my dissenting vote or my reasoning as explained above.
Rob,
I agree there is “an appetite” for a better planning process for this “jewel” before it becomes tarnished beyond repair. I wish the Guardian had taken up the issue and written more about it. The use of Victoria Park is of importance to all residents and I appreciate your comments and the fact that your blog brings these issues to the public, as our newspaper apparently is not.
On another note, any luck in having the agenda and resolutions published prior to public council meetings?
Also, did you read Paul McNeill’s comment on the “closed door” policy of council meetings on the Island in the Eastern Graphic? If true, and if the same happens in Charlottetown, there is far too much discussed during committee of the whole meetings which are not open to the public. Why aren’t they? If there are issues to do with contracts and personnel, I agree discussions should be held behind closed doors, but otherwise, they should be open and transparent. I don’t believe there is anything shady going on per se, but why can’t electors see their council in action? The public meetings of Charlottetown Council seem a rubber-stamping show only; there are no reports available to the public and seemingly very little real discussion.
I did ask the question to senior city staff: Why don’t we publish the agenda prior to our monthly public meetings. I have not yet received a response. Thanks for reminding me. I’ll follow up.
I was going to post all the resolutions for our November meeting here, but we only receive the meeting agenda as a hardcopy, so I would have to type them all out.
There was some suggestion at the beginning of my term that the format of our monthly meetings might be changed to allow members of the public to address council at the beginning of the meeting. Four or five speakers, names submitted beforehand, five minutes each. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Regarding the “closed door” policy. We were reminded at the beginning of my term that provincial legislation, CAMA I believe (Charlottetown Area Municipalities Act), requires all council meetings to be open to the public, unless of course the agenda items are confidential in nature, as you pointed out. It may not be as simple as just showing up, but my understanding is that all our meetings are open to the public. In my eleven months on council, no one has shown any interest. We have a CoW 5pm on the 28th. I don’t know the agenda items yet.
Rob
Thanks for that vote. I am one of the Heritage Review Board members who voted against the resolution and I appreciate your desire to reflect my concerns and the concerns of many others at the public meeting.
I was thinking about what we already have at Victoria Park: a pool, a wading pool, change rooms, a playground, three ball fields, a skate park, an ice cream stand, tennis courts, a pottery shed and two roads It amazes me that there’s even any “nature” left.
Maybe there’s no point in even trying to preserve it anymore.
Rob, I just wanted to drop in a note that Point Pleasant Park is EXACTLY what I think of when I think about a future for Victoria Park, and the careful planning and unmitigated respect that have been evident in its (re-)development are a perfect example for our city to follow. We have to be very careful not to consign the gift that is Victoria Park to the realm of development… it is easily arguable that it’s value may lie in just the opposite direction. I’m all for having as many parks and recreational spaces in the city as we can, but Victoria Park is a special case, and the addition of further rec. facilities (whether tennis courts, ball diamonds, or what have you) should be considered in terms of expanding our total rec. spaces, not crowding more into the ones we already have.