There were over 12 hours of action this last week at council between Tuesday’s planning meeting and Wednesday’s regular meeting. There was a lot of stuff to chew on, a lot of potential lessons learned, and as I sat down to try and make sense of it here, I was having a hard time.
Then an idea came to me: Do a list! This is the time of year for lists, so it seems apropos. Below are the big takeaways I had from the last bit of new council business for the year 2024. A feverishly busy week at the end of a frantically busy year.
I’ve got four points, in no particular order…
1) When You Kill a Heritage Asset, It’s Dead.
It seemed like there was some sober second thought by council between last month’s meeting, when they gave the University of Guelph exactly what it wanted without a moment’s hesitation, and the reality this week of signing the death warrant for the Rutherford Conservatory on campus.
Council acted foolishly, and in complete disregard of the advice of Heritage staff and the consultation of the committee charged with protecting heritage. And let’s be clear: There’s not going to be any commemoration to that building. Sure as day follows night, the paid consultants will find that the steel is not salvageable and/or someone will “accidentally” throw too much of the steel into the back of a garbage truck to make a difference.
I salute Heritage Guelph and community members for leaving it all on the field, waiting 'till almost midnight to take their shot at saving the conservatory, but I’m sorry to say that the fix was in. They should now put their efforts into finding the money that was supposedly earmarked by alumni to manage the upkeep of the conservatory and what it will be used for now.
2) Friendship is Not Magic
Council needs a desperate reminder that there are no friends in politics, only favours.
Before the vote on the conservatory, Coun. Ken Yee Chew asked council to keep the “collaborative spirit and relationship building” with the U of G in mind before voting, and then Mayor Cam Guthrie on Wednesday rose to the defence of Skyline when Coun. Erin Caton suggested people with lived experience should be prioritized for any future homelessness task force over businesses and tourism.
While I would never say council shouldn’t work collaboratively with other institutions or businesses in the city, this needs to be done with caution. Again, this is an era of extreme skepticism about power, so when any government looks like they’re too cozy with those concerns, it confirms a feeling in the electorate that only monied interests in Guelph get access, and only their wish list gets granted.
Does that mean business has no place in local politics, or on, say, a task force to end homelessness in Ontario? No, but the actions of council this year, including the passage of the Public Space Use Bylaw, has felt like council has been more concerned about the business issues downtown rather than the human rights ones.
3) Parking Isn’t the Problem, the Cars Are
A lot of discussion at this week’s planning meeting came down to concerns about parking, where are we going to put all the cars if we’re limiting parking minimums? How about we look at the issue in another way, why does the City of Guelph make it so hard to get around with anything other than a car?
That goes double when you get out from the city centre. Look at the west end where there are no north-south connections for active transportation, and all paths south end at Wellington Street, west of Edinburgh. In other places, bike lanes start and stop with huge gaps, and multi-use paths are half completed or scheduled to begin sometime in the next 10 years.
And though I will acknowledge council just made some big investments in transit, it wasn’t in the things that really matter, which is reducing the length of crosstown trips, reducing the need to transfer, reducing the necessity to travel downtown to get anywhere and making sure that a bus shows up when it’s scheduled to show up.
Instead, we’re abhorrently focused on making sure there’s room for everyone to park a car who wants to own a car, despite the acknowledgement the City is supposed to be reducing reliance on private automobiles and the fact that even the vast majority people behind the wheel want less traffic on the road. Reminder: If you have a car, you’re part of the parking problem, and if you’re driving in traffic, you’re part of the jam.
4) Heritage Conservation District is the New NIMBY
The redevelopment of 8 Mitchell St. came to council for final approval, and predictably area residents didn’t like it. But in their resistance, they’ve found a unique new tool to save their vaunted neighbourhood character, they’re trying to organize and fundraise their own heritage conservation district study review.
Some on council called the proposal interesting, but let’s call it what it really is: Next level NIMBYism.
Let’s consider this: What kind of people in Guelph get to think about things like “neighbourhood character” when deciding where they live in this city? I know I couldn’t when I was looking for a new place earlier this year because there were only three guiding factors in my housing search, and they were price, price, and price.
If you think this is the last time a neighbourhood is going to try and save its supposed character with an HCD, you’re wrong! The strongest force in the universe is the human resistance to change and we will do anything we have to in order to avoid it, even if embracing change is easier.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you can’t build in one area of the city because that area thinks redevelopment is inappropriate there, then you can’t build anywhere in the city. What the Mitchell Street area proposed this week is NIMBYism on steroids, and we’d be foolish to think other neighbourhoods in this town won’t want to get swoll too.
