Alan Pickersgill - The View From Here

(January 22) - I don’t know what’s the matter with traffic lights. They control flow on busy roads fairly well, forcing some cars to stop while other ones go. On lightly used streets, stop signs do the same job just as effectively. The thing most people have against the lights on the Hanlon is that they aren’t synchronized. On a bad day it might take an extra ten minutes to get to the 401. Looking at a normal scale of aggravations, this should be no more than a notch or two higher than having to stop at the intersection of Kathleen and Tipperary Streets. In other words, nothing most people can’t handle.

Upgrading to synchronized lights wouldn’t be difficult, nor would it be expensive. Compared to a cloverleaf overpass, they cost next to nothing. Compared to three or four overpasses, the cost of new lights is chump change. This should make us all wonder. If the people in the Ministry of Transportation want to fix the Hanlon, why are they going about it the way they are? The McGuinty government says it is dedicated to the wise use of taxpayers’ money. If this is the case, you’d think they’d just slide on over to the Wal-Mart and buy a set of inexpensive Made in China traffic lights coated in the cheapest available lead-based paint. Or, if the Boxing Day sales were still on, they could go to a slightly more upscale store like Zellers and pick up a set of roundabouts. They’re better than traffic lights because they don’t use electricity and could save us money down the road.

Unless fixing the Hanlon is not what it’s all about. The Ministry has engaged Stantec Consulting Inc. to sell their plan to us. They say on their web site that the Ministry’s ultimate goal “is to convert the Expressway to a fully-controlled access facility.” There is already a preferred plan. It involves running College Ave. under the Hanlon, and building interchanges at Stone Rd., Kortright Rd., Laird Rd. and County Rd. 54.

Without a doubt, this will inflict serious harm on residential neighbourhoods close to the expressway. And why? To create a short cut from American border points on the Niagara Peninsula to Highway 400 between Barrie and Toronto. About 300 people went to a public consultation meeting at the Holiday Inn last week. Most of them said they would rather not have Highway Four O’Hanlon running past their kitchen windows. Stantec’s job is to listen, and then explain that they know better. They are supposed to convince the unwary that the Ministry knows best, and help build a future where, in Joni Mitchell’s immortal words, they can pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

The Hanlon Expressway was a bad idea when it was dreamt up 40 years ago. It goes from the 401 to Woodlawn Rd. and cannot go any further north or south without running over environmentally sensitive wetlands. They might have got away with it if they’d acted quickly. In those long ago and almost forgotten days governments thought planning was easy. A steel girder here, a load of cement there and you’re on the fast track to a happy future. The tadpoles and finches could always move to the wetland next door. Not now. We have become much more aware of the consequences of our actions. Our planning decisions have to factor in the economic, social and environmental health of communities. The economic has no value if the social and environmental are allowed to waste away.

The highway belongs to the Province. It’s their property, but that doesn’t mean they can do what they want with it regardless of the consequences. The community it runs through is ours and we have the right to say what uses will be made of it. We can, and should, and must tell the province we will not allow their dogma to chase our karma.

Our city council established a good working relationship with the province on the land around the former reformatory on York Rd. They have shown that provincial and municipal planners can row in the same direction when they understand each other’s priorities. The goodwill earned in that exercise can be brought to bear on the Hanlon. I fear it will take more than goodwill to save our south. It will take people expressing their opinion. You can help by signing a petition available at the CFRU booth in the Farmers’ Market and at some retail outlets around town.

# posted by Alan Pickersgill @ 5:31 AM 0 Comments

(January 08 2008) - First things first. As I write this column on December 27, news is breaking that a new child has entered the world. I have been turned into a Grampa, thanks to my daughter-in-law, Laura, and my son, Chris. Madelaine Jean Kelly Pickersgill clocked in at 7 pounds 1 ounce at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. She’s a beauty. Now back to the regularly scheduled programming.

People love libraries. Guelph people love Guelph’s library. By the end of November, we had borrowed just over 1.5 million items, up from 1.3 million in the previous year. That’s almost a book and a half a month for every man, woman and child in the city. The Guelph Public Library is, without a doubt, the most widely embraced public institution in town.

In three ways – a new east side branch, a 125th birthday party, and decisions about the Baker St. parking lot - this coming year is very important for the continuing growth of the library. The intention was to open the new branch in 2008 somewhere in the Grange, Starwood and Watson area. The families who want to use it have moved in already. Residential development is going up at a furious pace. Commercial development is lagging behind as we continue to suffer the ill-effects of the Wal-Mart invasion. Allowing it to locate on the northern edge of the city was a short sighted planning decision that’s having long term consequences on the eastern edge. Sooner or later commercial plans, and the opportunity to locate a branch library, will become clearer.

Let’s hope it happens this year. It will add to the library’s 125th anniversary celebration. Several events throughout the year will involve the public in the celebrations. It would be fitting if a ground breaking ceremony was one of them.

The third area of opportunity this year lies in the development of the new downtown main branch. We know it will be built on the Baker St. parking lot. It could be part of a multi-use complex which will include a parking garage and a commercial-retail-residential component. What we don’t know is how closely integrated the three parts will be, and who will own what. Two weeks ago, the mayor was quoted in this paper saying the city is willing to consider leasing space for the library in a privately developed and owned building. Now that she has brought this into the open, we should have a good debate about it.

Farbridge said leasing space would “remove a logjam” from the city’s capital budget. From a financial point of view, this might be true. Privatization is a siren song that too often brings politicians under its spell. Cash starved governments hope someone with deep pockets will step forward and relieve them of some of their burdens. It is usually a mistake. Every time it happens, our civil commons gets smaller.

If Guelph gives up ownership of its main library building, it will set a precedent. We will become the first and only city in Canada to have our library housed entirely in leased quarters. That is not the cutting edge we want to be on. It will take us back a hundred years. At the beginning of the last century Andrew Carnegie gave the Guelph Public Library Board $20,000 to build a library building. The city sold the land at the corner of Norfolk and Paisley to the Library Board for a dollar. Prior to that, the library owned its collection of books, but leased the rooms that contained them. Since 1905, it has owned its collection, its land and its building.

Leasing space for the library’s branches makes sense. They should be somewhat flexible in case they need to move as population density shifts. A main branch library is not. It is the rock that holds the rest of the system in place. A building designed to hold a vast collection of books does not lend itself easily to other uses. Whenever and wherever it is built, the library will occupy that space for another fifty years or more.

A decision about owning or leasing it will be made soon. We have to get it right. Do we want to see a cherished public institution reduced to being a tenant in the private sector? That is a heart breaking proposition.

By the time little Madelaine turns 50, her library shouldn’t still be living in rented rooms.

# posted by Alan Pickersgill @ 7:53 PM 0 Comments