Downtown patios, again

An impassioned presentation on the benefits of moving the downtown restaurant patios to the curbside, last night, failed to move me. I still think it's a bad idea and I haven't heard any comments from the restaurant owners to suggest anything said last night has relieved their concerns*.

Two things came up last night that reinforced my resistance. First was the very obvious closeness of the vehicles to the eating-drinking areas of the proposed new patios. The distance from the edge of the patio fence to the curb is 0.85 metres, or roughly 33 inches. But of course the cars park over that line - especially those large pick-up trucks and SUVs that already have problems with keeping their back ends out of the traffic lane. So in reality the front end of a parked vehicle will be withing touching distance of a seated customer.

Take a look at the number of parked cars on Hurontario right now, on the block between Second and Third Streets. See how many have a portion of their front end extending past the curb line.

Not to mention that narrow space between patio fence and curb is also supposed to allow pedestrians to move along the curb edge, and provide access to those vehicles. If a vehicle sticks its front end 12 inches past the curb - easily done - that "walkway" is reduced to around 20 inches, crowding the pedestrians towards the patios. Diners will be able to enjoy people squeezing by, inches away from them.

Take a careful look at the image at the top, taken from the presentation. That's a proposed relocated patio, moved from building side to curbside. Look how close the car is to the tables and chairs. Look at the images throughout this post - they're all similarly designed.

Me, I'd prefer someplace quieter to eat - say an airport, or a shopping mall food court. Okay, I'm being facetious. But I really would not enjoy sitting an arm's length from an idling vehicle while trying to enjoy a lunch outside.

And I have to ask: why are all stores not being treated the same? Shouldn't all retaillers be required to put their A-frame signs and sale-item tables on the curbside? If accessibility is really the issue in this redesign, then everyone should be treated the same. But they're not.

Second concern is the cost. The price tag to re-apply for a liquor licence alone is $685. According to the Retail Council of Canada, most independent retaillers work on less than 5% profit. That means a restaurant will have to bring in revenue of more than $13,700 just to cover the cost of the licence. Plus there's the cost of the new fencing, the cost of the umbrellas, new tables and chairs (if required - and the designers say the new patios will be bigger), wet bar, increased liability insurance,etc.

So figure a restaurant may have to pay $3,000 for the move (as one restaurateur told the Enterprise-Bulletin, but some have told me it's more). If they reap 5% margin, that translates into the profit margin on $60,000. They need to make an additional $60,000 just to pay for the move. And in a couple of years, the licences will need to be renewed - another $700 (or $14,000-plus in sales to cover the cost).

Do you believe the businesses will just absorb that cost? Or will they have to put up prices to recover it from customers? Which means that you and I will pay more when we eat downtown. Now maybe you're rich and it doesn't matter a lot, but when prices go up, it means I eat out less. And I think for a lot of people in Collingwood that's true.

All of this is compounded by municipal taxes, BIA fees (including the recent approval of yet another study that the BIA will spend $75,000 on, over a three-year period), wages, employer deductions like CPP, EI and WSIB, utility bills, GST, and soon the HST.

Another comment I made was that the proposed designs were rather optimistic in terms of the placement of tables and chairs. While some look cozy and comfortable, in many the space to move a chair back without hitting another diner or the fencing is very limited. I suspect that the drawings show more artistic leeway in space and design than a restaurateur would be able to provide in order to have happy customers and efficient service.

While Councillor Sandberg dismissed these concerns, saying the redesign was for the benefit of all the downtown, not just seven restaurants, I don't agree. The patios animate and enliven the downtown, and encourage people to go there and linger. The more people downtown, the longer they stay, the more they're likely to spend. And that's good for downtown businesses - we already see far, far too many closures on the main street. Let's try to reverse that trend.

Given the very vocal opposition I've heard over this idea, I'm surprised** we don't make this a public issue and call for people to express their concerns or support at a public meeting. We're letting the BIA and the designers - and council*** - dictate what the public (and the stakeholders most affected by the change) may not want.

If there's a lot of support for the move, then let the public say so. But if not, then maybe we should listen. Perhaps this is the time to remind readers that downtown restaurants already have a petition against moving the patios, and have collected more than 1,000 signatures on it.

While the town is busy making the decision for others, our CAO last night confirmed that the town has not had any meetings with the restaurant owners themselves. Seems to me we have a disconnect here, and are letting the BIA reps do all the talking on someone else's behalf. I think we should be having direct conversations with the people most affected by the proposal, without the intermediary of the BIA.

Six months ago, when this issue came before council, the BIA promised to come up with creative ways to help deal with the changes and their associated costs. But last night we heard nothing at all about BIA involvement in the process, aside from a quote that reiterated the executive's support for the design.

In the EB article noted above, the BIA had promised to find a solution six months ago:

Quote

And three months ago, the EB wrote:

Quote

Nothing about this plan or its current status was presented last night. It might have softened my resistance somewhat if council had seen something the business owners themselves supported and agreed to. But I do note that "low-interest financing" just means the costs get spread out over time, not mitigated or reduced. In fact, financing makes it MORE expensive, not less. Perhaps the business owners will accept this as a solution, but in a similar situation in my own business, I'd be skeptical because the costs still remain to be paid from a very small profit margin.

~~~~~
* I mentioned these in my previous post. In his presentation, Mr. Houghton referred to comments made on a local blog, without identifying it, but I suspect it was that post he meant. It's either that or the East End Underground. Either way, it's good to know staff read local blogs, even if few at the table bother.
** Well, I suppose I'm not really surprised. This council has not held public meetings over a lot of crucial issues that affect public interest - from shutting down the Admiral Collingwood development, to opposing a ward system. And when the public has responded - the 2,500 signature petition asking council to reinstate the Admiral Collingwood development comes to mind - they've often been ignored or sloughed off.
*** And, as the mayor has pointed out about me several times, none of us are "experts." But I am a retailler with 10-plus years local experience running a business.