Newspaper story confusing about patio move

I've been getting some calls about the headline story in today's Collingwood Connection. Seems to some people the opening is murky about who voted for what. Unless you were there, it may not be very clear. The newspaper reported:

Quote

Okay, it does see a bit obfuscatory. Let's see if I can untangle that.

Councillor Edwards made the motion to keep the patios next to the buildings. I seconded his motion. Mayor Carrier and Deputy Mayor Cooper also voted to keep the patios beside the buildings. So the four of us were IN FAVOUR of keeping the patios where they were last year: beside the buildings. We lost.

Councillors Jeffrey, Sandberg, Labelle, McNabb and Foley voted against Mike's motion. They want to move the patios to the curbside. They won.

Councillor Labelle wanted to defer the motion so we could get a report from the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) about the costs and licensing. Two weeks ago he voted against an identical motion requesting that very same report, so of course it went nowhere.

At the previous council meeting I had tried to get any changes to patios deferred until 2011, to give all parties - town, BIA and restaurant owners - a chance to meet and try to work out some sort of compromise. I also wanted to hold a public meeting so you, the ratepayers, could have your say in the issue. This was voted down by Councillors Jeffrey, Labelle Sandberg, McNabb and Foley. They would brook no slowdown in their timetable to force this change on the downtown.

That's why Mike brought his motion forward - a last ditch attempt to keep the patios where they belong.

Mike and I both failed to sway the extra person needed to stop this folly. We lost. The patios - if any are actually put out this summer - will be moved to the curbside despite the logic and safety concerns that suggested they stay put.

The bylaw will come forward at the end of this month for the final vote and we'll likely see the same 4-5 split. So it looks like we're going to force our design "solution" on people who don't want it, and on a public that doesn't want it. That's democracy for you!

There is an "ad-hoc" patio committee - the "Patio Working Group" - formed in the BIA to discuss this growing problem. The committee has just one restaurant owner who had a patio last year (from Espresso Post, not even a licenced patio). No one else in the restaurant-patio group is a member, and none of the licenced patios are represented. But pro-move Councillor Jeffrey is a member, as is the pro-move BIA chair and pro-move landscape planner.

The PWG has not, so far as I've seen, come up with anything the restaurant/patio owners can swallow.

The PWG proposed a trial year for permit a small unlicensed patio in the 2' strip immediately in front of the business. Small café style chairs and tables would have to be secured to the wall so they don't impede the pedestrian walkway. Other retail outlets don't have to secure their signs or tables, but apparently restaurants need to secure their furniture. How fair is that?

Here are some other PWG ideas from their last meeting:

Non-restaurant owners will be "allowed" to apply for permission to use the space in front of their building (at a "reduced fee" - but still another damned expense) - for merchandise. But only on weekends, special events and holidays. More cash grabs, eh?

You, the taxpayer, get to pay some of the costs. They PWG has suggested the town's Building and Fire Services would do their assessments of space and occupancy at no additional fee to the restaurants (but you, the taxpayer still pick up the cost).

The PWG suggests the BIA will source for purchase and/or finance (at cost over one year) tents in a "suitable heritage colour" for use in public space on weekends, special events, and holidays. They will also source propane fridges/portable bar units for purchase and/or finance at cost over one year for BIA members, and umbrellas in appropriate heritage colours.
Members may use or source their own umbrellas. These cannot have advertising on them - which rules out freebies from sponsors - and must be approved by the Heritage Committee. This is looking so authoritative, so Reston.

These items aren't free. No: we're forcing the owners to pay for them if they make this unwanted, unnecessary move. But the PWG wants the BIA to spread the pain over a year, rather than force the businesses to pay it all up front. So instead of a beheading, it's death by a thousand cuts. How relatively kind.

The PWG notes say "Existing patios will be able to adapt existing enclosures to assist with transitional costs to meet new patio size." Which means: the restaurants have to pay for more fencing to add the required fourth side.

And finally, the PWG recommends the BIA "purchase existing enclosures on public space at current value based on condition to inventory for re-sale to future patio owners if existing patio owners wish to purchase new enclosures." So the BIA buys the old fences at some discounted rate and the owners have to pay for new fences at full market value. gee, I'll bet they're all saying thanks a heap for that.

So the story may be confusing to some, but I hope this clears it up. I'll have to speak to John about run-on sentences in future articles.