Comments on: Waterfront advisory committee a go – with strings attached

By: Charles Frank

Charles Frank — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:39:56 +0000

Just a suggestion. You might want to convince council to buy up these properties to prevent development because what I’m seeing here is another Wal-mart battle. Where council pretends they can stop legal development to appease voters before the election. Then after the election tell us how many millions they blew in legal fees and lost tax revenue. [Some of us have not forgotten] when the OMB throws them and their pathetic arguments out of court. Tim Hortons might role over and play dead but Walmart didn’t and there is now a big beautiful Walmart on Fairview where council told us there would not be one. The big developers won’t back down either. From were I’m sitting, it appears the developers have the Provincial Policy Statement, Places to Grow Mandate, Official Plan, and Local Zoning and the OMB on their side. I think a strategy change might be in order. What do you guys think???

By: Pepper Parr

Pepper Parr — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:58:42 +0000

Now that TDL has abandoned their OMB appeal – do we now proceed with the creation of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee. The sooner the better – like next Council meeting. Who will ensure this is on the Council Agenda?

By: A. Rendall

A. Rendall — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:58:19 +0000

Interesting stuff. It’s a little late to close the gate when the horse has already bolted for the city. However, the Save the Waterfront group should petition TDL (Tim Hortons) about thinking of community input rather than legal remedy to get what they want.
Failing having TDL changing the way they think, we can legally picket their Burlington stores, so the community actually know what TDL are doing in their community, and how they don’t care about the effect on our community. This can be done by random pickets, handing out leaflets and banners advising why the citizens of Burlington deserves better from TDL, and what are the issues.
No large corporate company that is consumer driven wants the free media attention, which we could notify and draw unwanted attention to their exploits of hard balling.
We do not have to stop the drive through nor the walk ins, but the presence, and handing out flyers will grab their attention. Its far better than just turning up at City Hall.
Perhaps we have a lawyer, or even a person who is close to a lawyer, who may give us a legal opinion on the issue of, when the committee should or should not be stuck. I am sure a Burlington lawyer with expertise in these kind of issues, that resides in this great city, would not mind a free consultation.
That’s my 2 cents worth.

By: Wendy Kormos

Wendy Kormos — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:53:57 +0000

I agree with the Advisory Committee idea…the more info everyone can gleen, the better..this is a very important piece of land and it should be the anchour for a fantastic future downtown concept…keep up the good work..Wendy Kormos

By: Tim Rayner

Tim Rayner — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:31:14 +0000

I agree with your counter proposal and I hope that our Councillors will too!

This must be a case of balancing the Burlington growth interests with the needs and rights of the constituents, the people of Burlington. Where are you Cam? It’s time to stand up for something!

By: Carolynne Sawdon

Carolynne Sawdon — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:55:39 +0000

Acceptance of haphazard development of a fundamental parcel of land, initiated by one corporation would be totally irresponsible and unacceptable of a City that prides itself in “community development”.

A committee set forward by the community would be dire in a “go forward” for the total well being of this remarkable city. Let’s get it “right” from the start.

Please keep in mind the shore loss that is indicated by numerous environmental reports. This will increase as the ice caps melt over the next 90 years. Toronto is not a good model to follow. Part of the draw to the entire Burlington skyline is the ability to see the water as you walk, run or drive along the Lakeshore. What is the purpose of the Waterfront Trail if the view of the Waterfront is impeded.

Don’t let Tim Horton’s bully its’ way to set precedent.

By: Mel Burton

Mel Burton — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:15:25 +0000

To put another highrise building beside Emma’s Back Porch would be a disaster. We have that one little strip of waterfront bordering Spencer Smith Park and that is likely what we’ll be stuck with. You can be sure Ron Joyce will have a penthouse suite on the top floor of his highrise so he can come for “business” trips to visit his friends. The city should extend our water front from the Hotel at the end of Brant St at least up to Emma’s Back Porch.

By: Gary Scobie

Gary Scobie — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:07:40 +0000

I agree with your proposal. It is well thought out and well written. As you say, there is no reason to further delay the formation of this committee.

I also agree with Dave Adeney’s comments on lobbying Tim Horton’s to think of the “community” aspect in the future plans for their site. Tim Horton’s thrives on positive public relations. They are potentially heading into their first major negative public relations battle.

I would be interested in serving on this committee as a representative from Ward 3.

By: Dave Adeney

Dave Adeney — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:52:46 +0000

I agree with Save the Waterfront’s current proposal. If council had been more proactive about citizen consultation at an earlier date, the legal risk it’s now concerned about (re: OMB hearing on Tim Horton’s)would not have arisen.

Another thought: Tim Horton’s might reconsider its application given the company’s long-standing commitment to responsible corporate citizenship. Could
Save the Waterfront make this case to Tim Horton’s?