Doors closed on patio issue, says EB

"Councillors closed the door on the patio issue, Wednesday, allowing downtown businesses another couple of weeks with temporary fencing for curbside patios." Enterprise-Bulletin, July 30, 2010.

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the special meeting that the mayor called (oddly, nor could the mayor) to deal with the patios, but I don't consider the meeting to be about "closing doors." Rather it was held to deal with a minor issue about the fencing required for patios.

Something this small should have been dealt with by staff as a discretionary issue, and not required council to weigh in, but I suspect staff have been made cautious about making independent decisions. The last time staff made decisions about patios (decisions that were entirely justified and common sense), a couple of council members dumped on them so severely that I am surprised it didn't spawn legal action.

I had commented to council by email before the meeting, that, if we were going to allow some flexibility for restaurants over their fencing - the heritage-type fences that are required were not available from the manufacturer and are still weeks away - we should equally allow some flexibility to allow licensed patios to open beside buildings, as they had in the past.

After all, as Sean Cripps wrote to council in a few angry emails, isn't it favouritism to let some open in violation of the bylaw, but not others? Let's be fair, I argued, and let the restaurants get some revenue from this last long weekend of the summer holidays. We already screwed up their chance to make some money most of the summer, and during the Elvis Festival, why not give them some opportunity this weekend?

Obviously I was not in the majority of those who think that way, since the issue seems not to have surfaced during the meeting. But that's not surprising. The current mindset among the majority of council is, I suggest, to damn the icebergs of logic and business reality, and go full speed ahead with the Titanic of curbside patios.

In the EB story, Councillor Labelle said, "I think what happened is people were taking little bits instead of the whole concept." Well, I think people understand the whole concept very well, and simply don't agree with it, not merely disagree with pieces.

In the article, Councillor Sonny Foley "noted it was unfortunate that some of the restaurateurs are taking "the attitude they want to fight it." Geez, this is their livelihood and council has kneecapped it, without even the courtesy of consulting with them beforehand. Why is it any wonder they're fighting it? And why is anyone surprised that - after such an autocratic, anti-democratic approach - they are upset?

Councillor Tim McNabb said in the EB that "There is a better flow and feel to the downtown." I am a bit bemused by this because, according to everyone I have spoken to - including some fire service people and several truck drivers - the traffic flow is awful and far slower than in the past. The only reason the pedestrian flow is a bit better is because there are almost no curbside patios (only two, non-licensed ones), but the open space has also allowed a lot more cyclists to ride - illegally - on the sidewalk, creating more havoc and liability threats (cyclists on the sidewalk seem beyond our bylaw department to control).

McNabb also suggest that "some businesses aren't spending the money on moving things curbside because of the uncertainty of the October municipal election; there has been some suggestion that depending on the make-up of the next council, the decision to move the patios could be overturned."

Uh, yes: the patio location is an election issue and I'm one of those who are promising to restore the patios to the building side next election. It's been an election issue ever since council decided to move the patios without asking the restaurant owners what they thought.

Quote

A fair test of something you weren't allowed to comment on, and was forced upon you despite your protestations and a large, 1,000-name petition opposing it, is unlikely. I can't see too many businesses eager to spend $3,500-$5,000 - and perhaps much more - on a test of something they didn't want in the first place and don't believe will be successful. Maybe if council had decided to pay the costs of re-location, they might be more willing to test the design. But those costs would have been borne by you, the taxpayers.

Why can't Tim read anything in that "negative reaction" aside from a reluctance to spend money? And why couldn't we have had a test first, before the dictate that everyone had to move curbside? To me it seems backwards to tell people what to do, then to test whether or not our command is successful.

It's not an issue simply because of the patios: it's an issue about how council responded to public input. In short: we ignored it as we have throughout this term, almost from day one (think about the Admiral Collingwod debacle in early 2007). The public didn't want the move, the businesses didn't want the move, the fire service didn't want the move. But five members of council, and a handful of BIA executives wanted it, so it happened. No wonder people are unhappy.

And as a result, I'm hearing not only suggestions that council will be upset this next election, but that the BIA itself may be at risk. And not merely an overthrow of the current executive - that is, after this issue, to be expected - I've heard from several business owners that they don't want a BIA at all, and would join a legal or political challenge to its existence. I can foresee an entirely different sort of downtown business association being proposed by the businesses for their future.