Despite widespread opposition, patios get moved to the curbside

Despite all the problems, costs and concerns raised over the past year, the patios are moving to the curbside.*

Council voted 5-4 last night no to defer any changes to the proposed move. Councillors Jeffrey, McNabb, Labelle, Sandberg and Foley voted against my motion to defer any changes until 2011 to "give the BIA, the stakeholders and the Town the opportunity to collectively discuss the proposed change and attempt to find acceptable funding or financial incentives and to provide an opportunity for public input into the proposed changes."

Public input? Stakeholder concerns? Funding help? Not our concern. We, apparently, know what's best for the public, for the restaurant owners and for the downtown.

Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that only some might move, because many of the current patio owners (all of them?) have stated clearly that - because of the increased cost, the impracticality, the problems, extra licensing and the extra liability - they simply would rather not have a patio than have to move one.

Unless that threat proves empty, council may have voted patios off the main street entirely.

I tried to argue that, because of the downtown construction, restaurant owners would have half, perhaps less, of their patio season available to them to try and make the money required for the extra costs involved with the move. But five of my colleagues were unmoved by that argument, as they were by every other argument against the move presented this past year.

I really don't think most of the people at the table have a true understanding of just how tough it is for small business like retail and for restaurants to make a living.

According to the Retail Council of Canada, a successful retail business or restaurant makes 3-5% profit on its gross income. But for restaurants, it's even less. The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservice Association says the average pre-tax profit of a restaurant in Ontario is 2.5%. That means to pay the additional costs of the change - estimated between $2,500 and $5,000 - a restaurant needs to make at least $100,000 and possibly as much as $200,000 to pay for these extra costs.

Last year, several restaurants signed similar letters of protest against the proposed move (read a copy here). Common concerns raised by these owners included:

• INCREASED LIABILITY: due to increased possibility for accidents as waitstaff and/or customers cross pedestrian traffic to bring food and drink to the patio.
  
• INCREASED INSURANCE: due to increased liability.
  
• INCREASED BUSINESS EXPENSE: to recreate the patio, possibly needing more railings.
  
• DECREASE IN SALES: as customers avoid eating areas close to automobile fumes and parked cars.
  
• INCREASE IN THEFT: Tips left on tables are more easily stolen, as are cups and cutlery, etc.
  
• The BIA has not once contacted me as a restaurant owner, nor any others regarding this detail within the project.

None of these concerns has been addressed by council in any of our debates. As far as I know none of them were addressed by staff or the BIA, either, since the same concerns have been raised by restaurant owners since these letters were first written.

The last comment should have set off a lot of alarms. It made me ask why the people most affected by the proposed change had not even been contacted, let alone been made part of the design process. But it seems involving the stakeholders in changes that affect them has not been a priority for anyone.

The BIA executive promised to come back to council with a plan for financing to help the owners pay for the fencing, wet bars, licensing, new umbrellas, etc. Council never received any such plan from them. But the lack thereof didn't stop five of us from moving forward with this plan.

The fire chief spoke publicly, saying he was against the move.** All of the restaurant owners were against the move. I spoke with several other BIA merchants and they, too, were against it.

Council, as far as I am aware, did not receive a single letter from the public in support of the move, although we did get several opposed to it. A petition circulated in the downtown stores and restaurants opposing the move drew between 1,500 and 2,000 signatures. That, too, was ignored.

One resident wrote to council by email, saying:

Quote

Another wrote in email:

Quote

Even the downtown redesign presentation made that last point, noting, "Patios are located on public streetscape and contribute to a vibrant & animated downtown environment."

I wonder what our downtown will be like without patios this summer. Healthier? More vibrant? Or duller and drearier?

Councillor Jeffrey made the curious comment that Ontario's Alcohol and Gaming Commission did not enforce its regulations in Midland and Guelph which have similar curbside patios, so therefore they would not enforce them in Collingwood. This is hearsay not an official statement by the AGCO. It is foolish to present it as an argument. Remember the legal problems the town faced over lowering the speed limits on Hwy 26 when we depended on an unofficial comment from a government staff person about who had the authority to make that change? I suggested we cannot depend on such comments until we had them in writing from a person in authority at the AGCO.

Five members still decided to force the owners to make the move. yes, force. It's not a choice. It's an edict: move or don't open a patio downtown. Suffer the costs or don't open a patio. Shoulder the extra liability or don't open a patio.

Earlier this month, Ruth Bourachot, owner of Café Chartreuse, made a presentation to council on behalf of the downtown patio owners. Her speech and her points to ponder are online for reading. Among the concerns she raised:

• Safety for Staff, Customers & Pedestrians – this is just not safe.
  
• Insurance Premiums will increase – due to lawsuits over injured people and pets – not to mention loss of business over the publicity the will be received over the injuries – people have lots of choices to go and eat in the Collingwood area – if not happy & do not feel their health, safety & welfare is not a concern they will go else where – WHO will pay for the increase in insurance premiums – loss of business hurts the downtown core.
  
• Have to employ more staff over 18 due to liquor service & delivery to the patio - rate of pay is higher – this increases the cost of the business: rates student – 9.60– full-time – 10.25 alcohol server – 8.90 – I employ general rate - starting $10.25.
  
• Liquor license was just renewed in March cost $500.00 now the patios to be relicensed - will have to pay an additional $685.00 possibly more if the AGCO requires us to advertise because it is not a simple adjustment; we are moving the patio not enlarging or adding more seats – who is to pay for this?
  
• We have to get New stamped architectural drawings for the new patio – requirement of AGCO – who will pay for this?
  
• Will have to get letters from the Fire, Building & Health Dept stating they approve of the patio and licence to the establishment.
  
• We are not even positive the AGCO will endorse the Patio relocation with or without a mini bar? We have had no firm confirmation on this and have seen no letters or documentation on this matter.
  
• Possibility of new furniture – due to resizing of the patios – who will pay for this?
  
• We will have to increase and change the railing on the patio – to a fully enclose the space and the layout and dimensions are different – who will pay for this?
  
• Put a mini bar on the patio – who will purchase and pay for this?
  
• Have to have electrical hook-up for the mini bar – is their electrical hook-up for this near the patios or do we have to run electrical cords across the sidewalk to the restaurant for this – TRIP hazard -insurance - law suit – liability?
  
• Increase availability for people to pass liquor off to pass-buyers to drop of liquor onto the patio area since now all sides are exposed to pedestrian traffic – out of sight – not a constant control now – legal issue – jeopardizes our liquor licence.
  
• Increase of broken dishes & glassware as accidents happen – as people try to carry dishes over to the patio area – who will pay for this?
  
• The wind – on this street is incredible coming off the lake to move the patios further out into the street away from the façade increases breakage, umbrellas dishes etc from being blown off and away from the tables – who will pay for this?
  
• WSIB – premiums will go up when there are increased accidents to the staff – who will pay for this? Under the WSIB act the staff have a right to refuse work if they deem it an unsafe act – my staff have already informed me they will not serve the patio – NOW I have no staff to work the patio – how is this a good thing?
  
• Patios are now not smoke free now – since the patio is now 9’ from the building and not under a covered area - people can now smoke as well as having smokers around them – we were smoke free and wish to remain so for the health of our clientèle – how do we control this?
  
• Sitting under the trees – great idea until things start dropping in your food – birds droppings, feathers – squirrels droppings, fur – sticks, nuts leaves bugs etc. – people will want their food replaced or refunded – control health issue – who will pay for the increased food cost and returns?
  
• People need to understand Restaurants at best get a 5 – 6% return on profit – very small indeed – for the hard work we do to put our product out there - this will run us in the red for too long of time to recoup our losses - there is not break from the landlords – taxes in this town are high – BIA plus municipal and education – higher then in TO – plus talk of increases for the next years - it will take well over 3 yrs of patio seasons to recoup these immediate costs let alone long run cost!
  
• Overall it will cost approx min of $5000.00 to move and run & move our licensed patios in the new space - HOW can you expect us to pay for this?

As far as I know, not a single concern she raised was answered by anyone on staff, on council or on the BIA executive. But I can answer at last some of your questions regarding costs: YOU will pay.

One of the main reasons I wanted to defer any change was to give everyone a chance to discuss this issue and look for solutions and compromises that everyone bought into - not merely to force an unwanted change and additional costs on the downtown businesses. I wanted the time for the BIA to try and come up with a plan to find some funding opportunities and alternatives that might work. But that was rejected.

She also noted in her presentation that,

Quote

In an email to council, Duncan's Café wrote:

Quote

Again, as far as I know, none of his questions were answered. He makes a good point: why do patios have to move when retail businesses can have their displays beside their stores?

No public support for the change, and no public input sought. No consultation with the stakeholders. Serious concerns raised which remain unanswered. Additional costs being foisted on downtown restaurants without any compensation. A threat to have NO patios at all downtown. So in the face of all the opposition and the unresolved issues, why did we chose to approve the new design despite all of this?

You'll have to ask the five who voted against my motion (Jeffrey, Sandberg, McNabb, Labelle, and Foley).

I reiterate: I don't think many at the table really understand the economics or the realities of small business. A lot of businesses downtown manage to get by, but simply don't have any extra for unexpected costs like this.

It's often been said Collingwood is "closed for business." I think we'll hear that phrase again after this decision.

Ms. Bourachot made a telling point in her presentation, when she said:

Quote

She would not move the patio even if it was all paid for. Why? As she says,

Quote

But these safety concerns were never answered in any presentation, by council, staff or the BIA executive. And yes, council was made aware that it could represent a legal liability. If someone gets hurt on the main street as a result of this move, the town will be sued because it's on public property.

The Zencha Tea Bar wrote:

Quote

Which suggests this issue will not be left to rust away but will resurface next election (October 25, not very far away!) and will be a focal point at the next BIA AGM.

~~~~~
* My previous posts on the patio issue: here, here and here.
** He actually said he didn't like ANY patios, but said that if we had to have them, patios in front of the buildings were safer from a fire control perspective than those at the curbside.