[FrontpageSlideshow]

The penny drops: Burlington’s shoreline not protected

October 23, 2010 – 4:38 pm

Our shoreline in the Old Lakeshore Road area of our downtown waterfront is not protected from development, as we’ve been led to believe, nor are the heritage buildings along the shore safe from demolition.

The Save Our Waterfront movement has been raising concerns about our weakened shoreline protection for a year now – ever since current city council removed the 20m setback from our own bylaws, inside of which no development is supposed take place. The rationale for removing the setbacks: Conservation Halton governs shoreline protection; they’ve got our back. This was a double regulation. Or so we were told.

old lakeshore setback

Fast forward to last week, when the director of planning, Bruce Krushelnicki, told the Burlington Waterfront Access and Protection Advisory committee it’s possible a 3-4 storey building could go on the vacant waterfront lot beside Emma’s Back Porch – even though almost the entire lot is within the setback supposedly governed by Conservation Halton (and no longer governed by our own bylaws).

The penny finally dropped for the downtown councillor, who has been saying this land is undevelopable and has waved off Save Our Waterfront’s concerns as misinformed fear-mongering.

“I thought you couldn’t develop because of setbacks,” he asked at the meeting.

Developers are “creative” – replied our city planner. If they can stabilize the shoreline to Conservation Halton’s satisfaction, anything’s possible. And the heritage buildings? They could all be torn down and replaced with a building of the same size and footprint – news to us, since we’ve been told only repairs and renovations are allowed.

Clearly our concerns about shoreline development in the Old Lakeshore Road have been valid all along. But our downtown councillor’s approach – and that of other candidates in this election – has been to malign and misrepresent Save Our Waterfront rather than deal with the legitimate questions and concerns that have been raised. I’m hoping that the end of the election campaign period will mean an end to politically motivated misinformation, and a refocusing on the issues at hand: namely, how we’re going to undo the damage done by the current council and protect our waterfront and shoreline from inappropriate development.

To read the original article on the removal of shoreline protection click here.

Read More »

Email This Article Email This Article Print This Article Print This Article
By Marianne Meed Ward | Posted in Waterfront development | Comments (2)

Easier to play blame game than fix pier; you deserve better

October 13, 2010 – 8:03 pm

Former Burlington mayor Rob MacIsaac has weighed in on the pier project, criticizing current council’s decision to pursue litigation, and saying vigilance and negotiation could have completed the pier long before now.

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.

In an opinion piece in Saturday’s Hamilton Spectator MacIsaac wrote, “Anyone who has managed a large capital project knows that unforeseen things always happen. The true test of ability in capital projects is to keep them moving despite the problems that arise. That requires constant vigilance and some give-and-take between all those involved. It takes no skill whatsoever to allow a big project to devolve into litigation. It is absolutely tragic that this project has become stalled and doubtless the present situation could have been avoided.”

I agree. Though the pier was started under MacIsaac’s term, problems arose on this term of council – theirs was the responsibility to complete the project. They didn’t, and now it falls to the next council to finish the job.

The best way to protect Burlington taxpayers is not to litigate to find blame, or to retender – a lengthy, costly project. The best solution is to get this project restarted immediately, and work toward a negotiated, cost-effective solution through an open and transparent process.

Email This Article Email This Article Print This Article Print This Article
By Marianne Meed Ward | Posted in Pier | Comments (1)

Our neighbourhoods and waterfront at risk: we need balanced development

September 19, 2010 – 8:14 am

Development and growth can revitalize and renew our downtown waterfront and neighborhoods – with a vision and careful planning. But with current city council, we don’t have that now.

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.

The Official Plan is that vision for how and where our community wants to grow – but it is being routinely set aside, giving away 2, 3, and even 4 times the height and density limits in exchange for dubious community benefits negotiated without your input. These tradeoffs are worth millions to developers; in exchange, the community gets much smaller contributions to art or parking.

You’ve said you want a say in how our community is developed, early enough in the process to make a difference. You want a strong voice for our community, but you don’t even have a vote on rental projects because our current councillor owns rental property and has declared a conflict of interest.

You want a better balance between development interests and community priorities.

It’s critical we get this balance right going forward, given the city aims to add 100 housing/employment units each year for the next 20 years. We can reach our growth targets and revitalize our neighborhoods without compromising their character.

Email This Article Email This Article Print This Article Print This Article
By Marianne Meed Ward | Posted in Community Engagement, Downtown, Waterfront development | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments (2)

Latest pier handling head-scratcher

September 16, 2010 – 7:41 am

The decision is one more lurch in a long line of head scratchers that started in 2008 when a dispute arose over whether faulty design or construction caused problems with the first pour of the concrete deck.

Virtually nothing happened on the project till January – of an election year – when the contractor Harm Schilthuis & Sons, offered to redesign the pier and finish it as early as this fall. Faced with going to taxpayers nine months before an election to admit that this project – seen as a waste of money by many residents – was going to cost even more, the city chose to “cut off negotiations to pursue legal remedies.”

But the city waited till July to formally launch a lawsuit.

Then, weeks after that, the city stood down from the lawsuit, to resume negotiations with the contractor.

And days after that, the city thumbed their nose at those negotiations, and has decided to find out if anyone else can do the job better.

This knee jerk decision-making in search of a strategy seems more about protecting political fortunes than taxpayer interests. We are told council’s goal is to protect taxpayers – and yet the best strategy for doing that has not been followed: finding a timely resolution to the dispute. Re-tenderiing promises more costs and delays, even if someone is found to complete the project for less than the contractor’s offer.

And haven’t we learned that the “lowest bidder” isn’t always the best criteria for awarding a tender?

This issue is now bigger than the pier – it compromises Burlington’s reputation as a well managed city and a decent client. Lurching from one course of action to another is negotiating in bad faith. Our city has shown it will negotiate today, sue tomorrow, then re-tender the whole job. I liken it to putting an offer on a house, and once the seller gets a firm price out of you, takes your price to the open market to see if anyone else can beat it.
Read More »

Email This Article Email This Article Print This Article Print This Article
By Marianne Meed Ward | Posted in Pier, Waterfront development | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (1)

City launches $7.5m lawsuit on pier; Progress on waterfront, but it’s not saved yet

September 2, 2010 – 8:32 pm

In this update:

Much accomplished, but waterfront not saved yet

City advisory committee meets Sept. 10, 9-11:30 am City Hall, Rm 247

Much has been accomplished since Save Our Waterfront was launched a year ago, and 2000 of you joined with me to seek a better plan than high-rise development replacing 2-story heritage buildings in the Old Lakeshore Road area of our downtown waterfront.

Some of those achievements are detailed below and you should all take pride in celebrating them. I couldn’t have done this without the support of the Save Our Waterfront leadership team and all 2000 of you standing with me, sending donations, putting up lawn signs, and lending your voice for a community-led vision for waterfront development.

But our work isn’t done. Our waterfront is far from saved. But you wouldn’t know that reading city information.

Heritage still at risk

I recently got an email from a local resident, Tanya, asking about the status of Save Our Waterfront.

She wrote: “[I’m] asking because I saw a while ago on the City of Burlington heritage page that Old Lakeshore Road is being protected.”

City Hall’s website says it “wishes to maintain the important heritage features of the neighbourhood.” Eleven properties in the area have some heritage value, but none of these – except Emma’s Back Porch – are fully protected from demolition.

To do that, city council would have to work with property owners to obtain formal heritage designation. That hasn’t happened. So heritage protection is, at best, incomplete, and to suggest otherwise to residents is simply misleading.

No guarantee of additional waterfront access

City Hall also says it “will provide access to the waterfront at Old Lakeshore Road.” In reality, because of zoning changes this council made, a developer could at any time build up to four 6- to 10-story buildings with no requirement to provide waterfront access.

If a developer can assemble properties, they can go even higher – 8- to 15-storys – but that would require taking out all the heritage buildings (so much for protection!). It would also require closing part of Old Lakeshore Road. In return, residents would get a one-block path along the waterfront.
Read More »

Email This Article Email This Article Print This Article Print This Article
By Marianne Meed Ward | Posted in Pier, Waterfront development | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (0)

A Special Report on our Unfinished Pier

July 14, 2010 – 12:58 pm

Burlington's unfinished pierI’ve been doing some digging into the cause of delays with Burlington’s pier – and possible solutions. There is a way forward, but it likely won’t come quickly and may cost taxpayers more. I will continue to follow this story, and provide updates, including a report below that sets the record straight on some rumours I’ve heard.

Pier dispute may not be covered by bond

Update to Community Services Committee, July 14, 6:30 pm, City Hall

When negotiations to complete Burlington’s pier fell apart between the city and the contractor over a design dispute, the city called the contractor’s performance bond last January. In early July, lawyers for the city, the contractor, the bonding company, and the design engineer met to discuss the bonding company’s investigation into the dispute. One of the key points of discussion: whether a design dispute is covered under the terms of the bond. If the bond can’t be used, what are the costs and options to finish the pier?

To get to the heart of the dispute and possible solutions, I sat down for separate on-the-record interviews with Scott Stewart, the city’s general manager of community services; Tom Eichenbaum, the city’s director of engineering; Henry Schilthuis, president of Harm Schilthuis & Sons (pier contractor); and Doug Corby of Masters Insurance (an agent of Zurich, the contractor’s bonding company).

My report is below. It covers:

  • What went wrong: a design dispute
  • Tear it down, and other options to finish the pier
  • Offer to redesign & build by next year
  • Doubts raised whether bond covers design dispute
  • Seeking costs from AECOM: risky, lengthy
  • Pier costs increase $1 million for “contingencies”
  • Decision unlikely before next January
  • What you can do

It’s time for transparency for taxpayers. I will be presenting a 150-name petition seeking transparency on the costs and options to complete the pier at the Community Services Committee Wed. July 14. You can still add your name at mariannemeedward@bell.net.
Read More »

Email This Article Email This Article Print This Article Print This Article
By Marianne Meed Ward | Posted in Pier, Waterfront development | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (2)

The pier contractor isn’t bankrupt, and other rumours dispelled

July 12, 2010 – 11:07 pm

Burlington's unfinished pierWe may never know whether poor design or poor construction techniques caused the delays in building Burlington’s pier. Even professional engineers disagree on that point. But maligning the contractor’s reputation and spreading false rumours does nothing to advance dialogue and understanding of the situation, nor find a productive solution. Below, some of the rumours I’ve heard (including from city council members and officials!), and the reality.

Rumour:

The contractor is going bankrupt.

Reality:

The contractor (Harm Schilthuis & Sons) is solvent and has recently won tenders for several multi-million dollar projects. The fact that Schilthuis is solvent has complicated the city’s attempt to call Schilthuis’ performance bond pay to complete the project. Bonds typically come into play when there is insolvency – not the case here.

Rumour:

The contractor only got the job because they were the lowest bidder.

Reality:

Schilthuis was the lowest of three bids on the project, which ranged from $6.8 million to $8.4 million. (See the staff report comparing bids here. ) If city council’s only criteria for awarding tenders is “lowest bidder” that is a problem in itself. Additional reasons council may have chosen Schilthuis: Schilthuis had successfully built other projects in Burlington, including the Aldershot Pool and Aldershot Arena. As a result, Schilthuis was one of the few pre-qualified bidders on the pier project. A staff report in 2006 recommending that Schilthuis be awarded the pier contract stated, “Staff are very pleased with the quality of their work and are confident in their ability to successfully complete the pier project.” Read that report here.

Rumour:

The contractor is a small company that didn’t know the complexity of the job they were bidding on.

Read More »

Email This Article Email This Article Print This Article Print This Article
By Marianne Meed Ward | Posted in Community Engagement, Pier, Waterfront development | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (4)

City lacks transparency on pier costs, tax increases

May 12, 2010 – 9:34 am

The cost of Burlington’s unfinished pier is escalating, the “total budget” is a moving target and city documents contain contradictory and misleading information that masks the scale of the increases. Those are the findings of my recent investigation into the cost of the pier.

More than 130 of you have written to me to add your name to a list of residents seeking transparency from the city on costs and options to finish the pier, now two years behind schedule with no completion date in sight. City officials claim they can’t provide those answers for confidential legal reasons, and yet all this information is readily available in public documents – if you know where to look.

We can’t let the city shirk its duty to be accountable and transparent to residents any longer.

A week ago, city council unanimously approved in principle the recommendations of the citizen’s report, Shape Burlington, which called for more transparency, and early public involvement in decision-making.

There’s no time like the present. Councillors can put their words into action by coming clean on the costs and options to finish the pier.

Transparency on taxes

They can also explain why our city taxes have increased at triple the rate of inflation – almost 6% per year for the last 10 years. But you won’t know that from reading city press releases, which downplay the increases. Those details are below.

Other issues

You’ll also find a summary of other issues in our city, including details of two public meetings on Freeman Station (May 16 and 18), the first meeting of the new waterfront advisory committee (May 14), and an opportunity to speak out on accident victims being charged for fire truck calls (June 1).

As always, communication here is two-way – leave a comment below, or email me at mariannemeedward@bell.net to comment or add your name to the list of residents seeking transparency on the pier.
Read More »

Email This Article Email This Article Print This Article Print This Article
By Marianne Meed Ward | Posted in Community Engagement, Pier, taxes, Waterfront development | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments (5)

Public shut out of decision-making: Shape Burlington report

April 22, 2010 – 9:29 am

City Hall isn’t listening and citizen confidence in local democracy is declining. City Hall has “a communications deficit.” Those are just some of the findings of the Shape Burlington report on civic engagement released yesterday.

Those findings (full report below) are no surprise to followers of A Better Burlington community website, and the Save Our Waterfront initiative. A Better Burlington was launched a year ago to tell residents what City Hall is doing, and to solicit feedback and participation on a range of issues.

One of the biggest has been waterfront development. Residents were not broadly and meaningfully consulted before current city council approved high-rise towers for the Old Lakeshore Road area of our downtown waterfront. Save Our Waterfront was formed as an initiative of A Better Burlington to press for community input before decisions about our waterfront are made. An update on our progress and next steps is below.

But we are not alone in raising concerns about public input. They have been echoed by many other individuals and groups, cutting across a variety of issues. The common refrain: there’s a “need for improvement” in public involvement, to quote Shape Burlington.
Read More »

Email This Article Email This Article Print This Article Print This Article
By Marianne Meed Ward | Posted in Community Engagement, Waterfront development | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments (6)

Solution to finish pier exists – if City Hall will act

March 15, 2010 – 9:08 pm

The pier in Burlington’s downtown waterfront has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. The question everyone is asking: what’s going on? We’ve been led to believe the contractor, Harm Schilthuis, is to blame. This is a local company with 57 years in business, which has successfully completed many other projects in Burlington, including the Discovery Centre and Aldershot Arena. Why would they stop work on a job if they didn’t have a reason?

Over the past few weeks, I’ve used my journalism background to investigate. There’s more to this story than we’ve been told. Furthermore, there’s an option on the table from the contractor to finish the pier – as early as this fall if work begins immediately. We know the longer this project is delayed, the more it will cost, and we’ll spend money on litigation, not finishing the pier.

We need Burlington City Council to make a decision quickly – and tell taxpayers how much this is really going to cost. You can help by sending an email to  mariannemeedward@bell.net to add your name to the list of residents asking for transparency on the options available to finish the pier, and the final price. You can also leave a comment at the very bottom of the article.

Read more to get the details of my investigation, including interviews, research of public documents and material obtained under Freedom of Information.
Read More »

Email This Article Email This Article Print This Article Print This Article
By Marianne Meed Ward | Posted in Pier, Waterfront development | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (24)