The following editorial appeared in the July 11 edition of the Guelph Mercury:
I used this space last time to write about the open-air urinals proposed for the downtown, focusing on the uniqueness of this solution to that problem and trying to get my head around what an open-air urinal actually is. The picture on the Mercury website looked like a convention of male BlackBerry users.
But there really is a serious side to the issue — which is more about process and leadership. Let me make my case.
I watched with interest while city council debated the urinals issue, and I noted that a night life task force committee had been formed to make recommendations to council.
Among the committee’s members were several different stakeholders, and together they arrived at the solution that had been presented before council as a motion. That solution called for an experiment that would continue four to 12 weeks, depending on the amount of money it could raise, with an anticipated contribution from the city as well as from the downtown merchants.
As councillors debated, I heard that one of them had received an email expressing discomfort with the possibility that open-air urinals could be placed downtown.
What stood out to me was that a committee had worked to put forward a recommendation for council’s consideration, but that the one citizen who sent a single email to one of the councillors probably spoke with a greater voice than all of those people serving on the committee.
Then, I heard different opinions on gender-bias issues, human-rights issues, liquor-licence conditions and provincial law — all of them directed at shutting down the overall motion.
It gave the appearance that city council really isn’t interested in the work done when a small focus group undertakes on an issue, and that prefers to solve the problems based on the knowledge of its members. If this is the case, why do they form the committees?
I also noted that it’s the bar owners who are being held responsible for their patrons who are urinating all over the downtown.
I also recognize, as a business owner in Guelph, that we pay pretty substantial taxes to the city. If I was a downtown merchant or the owner of a bar I would be asking where my tax dollars were going. I can’t think of a better use of that money than finding a solution to make our downtown more habitable.
Prevention should be cheaper than clean up. Council’s decision to not contribute $5,000 to make this project work will save four cents per resident — but I see this as a false saving.
The money is already being spent on clean up, so why not spend it on prevention?
I never intended to have a strong opinion on open-air urinals. But having watched how things unfolded, I do now.
It is disappointing to see that city council doesn’t accept the recommendations of its committees, and I wonder why anyone would bother to serve on a committee if its work is going to be disregarded by council.
It’s disappointing to see council abdicating leadership. I heard all the reasons the project wouldn’t work from council, without hearing any alternate strategy. I saw the funding being pulled back, showing a lack of support.
And I saw a lack of leadership by council.
I wonder how council’s actions will help solve the problem. After all, finding a solution is best for everyone.
Grant Robinson is a local chartered accountant and adviser to family businesses on succession issues. His column appears every third Saturday in the Mercury.