This evening (Sunday July 16), a number of area residents (approximately 50-75) gathered at the Ingram farm house to express concern over recent developments surrounding the property and its use. Also in attendance to listen to these concerns were councillors Ian Findlay and Andy VanHellemond.
The Ingram farm house is located at the South East corner of what is now known as Wilson Farm Park, in a new subdivision on the North End of Town (Ward 2). The entire city block is a park, now
with the exception of the planned severance of the 80 by 200 feet occupied by this house and its surrounding trees.
The farmhouse and its property recently were approved to be severed from the park, put up for sale, and were approved to be designated a heritage property by city council. It became very apparent this evening that the public affected by these decisions (namely the residents in attendance this evening and others they represent in the community) have misunderstood these events and/or have been misinformed and excluded from these decisions.
All in attendance were under the impression, when they moved to the area, that the property and house were to remain a part of the city, to be used for park and/or community use. Some
have been following this issue for almost a decade, and others (like ourselves) are new to the issues as we have recently built a home here. An example of this misunderstanding is as follows: Recently, the city sought feedback for their park plan. Apparently, only four respondents disapproved of the plan. We expressed concern over the house and property, but were in complete support of the rest of the master plan. We were not aware that we needed to disapprove of the master plan based on a single item in order to have our concerns heard or responded to. With respect to the heritage designation or the severance, we were not informed and assumed we had no say since those decisions were presented as a “done deal”. We would expect that for either, residents would at very least be notified via mail, similar to the process we needed to undergo in approving a minor variance on our own property.
The Heritage designation stands on a few minor features (age of the property, significance of some of the windows as architecturally unique, and historical significance to the area). Currently, the house has been significantly vandalised, is falling into disrepair, is full of mold and becoming increasingly unusable as a structure for anything. Certainly, it is financially unattractive to do anything with it at this point to bring it to a safe and usable property, and this does not take into account the restrictions that
a heritage designation may carry.
The residents (ourselves included) who gathered this evening shared some common concerns and wishes for the property, consistent with what they have been told over the years:
1. They do not want this property to become a residential property, or anything other than a property for park or community use. (There are no other examples in Guelph of parkland [especially seeing it was donated] being severed and sold for city income). Severing this part of the park takes away the parks best and most enjoyed features.
2. They want to respect the heritage value, but think that preserving an entire structure to do this is missing the mark and question that the structure as a whole has the expressed heritage
value based on both the history of the physical home and the families inhabiting it (a few windows don’t make a solid case for an entire structure to be maintained). The suggestion brought up often was to level the home, preserving the windows for a local museum or in a visual medium somehow, and to mark the location with some small remainder of the ruins and/or a plaque stating its historical significance to the area.
3. They want the 80 by 200 foot lot to remain as a part of the park as they have been led to believe it would be (and even paid premiums for) by builders and developers, by city staff, and
by counsellors.
4. They want something to be done with the house soon as it continues to be a safety concern for area children, a target for vandalism, and at times a space for loitering and mischief.
This whole debacle has also led to delays in deciding on and developing the park space (as reported by park staff). This means that families moving hear a decade ago and counting on
a park for their children were never able to enjoy the facilities they were promised while parks have appeared in newer sub divisions across the city.
Your leadership in:
1. reversing the decision to designate the house as a heritage property or changing how that designation is honoured to make it more practical to the space and preferential to the
community residen,
2. reversing the decision to sever and sell the property, and
3. honouring the park, the donors of the park and property, the property, and the residents will demonstrate your commitment to
1. a common sense solution that creates a safe, beautiful, historically relevant, functional, and enjoyable space for the city to call its own and the community to enjoy and,
2. preventing the threat of inconsistent development possibilities in the future.
We look forward to increased transparency and open dialogue on these issues, as has not been the
case thus far. Our community needs appropriate, timely and satisfactory resolution on these
issues to restore faith in the local political process and in city management of public spaces.
Thank you for your time and service to our city.KH