Well, well! It’s no surprise the majority of you voted last night to reject Walmart’s application to expand with a much-needed grocery store – and other amenities – in the north end of the city! This council is very much a “lobby-oriented” group, listening, not to the “silent majority” of us, but to the vocal anti-development minority lobby which has held sway over this city for so long! Despite one councillor’s assurance that this council is supportive of long-needed commercial development in the north end, your actions speak much louder than your words! This council IS selfishly concerned about denying those of us in this part of the city the same level of commercial choice as exists so far from us. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SELFISH ACTION! WE WON’T FORGET IT IN THE NEXT ELECTION! GS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My husband and I are residents in Ward 2and we are sending this correspondence to voice our anger and disappointment at your decision to vote against the Wal-Mart expansion which would provide a full grocery store.
From the corner of Woodlawn & Woolwich, down a short distance to the Evergreen Seniors Centre, there are 4 condominium buildings, one life-lease seniors building and 5 apartment buildings all of which have a large population of seniors. Most of the seniors we know in this area were looking forward to the opening of the Wal-Mart grocery store. We know people from the building in which we live who already walk over to Wal-Mart, (a couple work there, and a few do their walking exercise up and down the aisles in the store). There are other seniors we know who have to take a taxi to go grocery shopping, and were happy about the fact that their taxi fares would soon be a lot less because they had only a short ride across Woodlawn to shop. Then there are those of us who don’t like to drive far in inclement weather and were looking forward to a 2 minute drive to get groceries.
One resident who was so annoyed with your decision put the picture of council which was in the Tribune up on our bulletin board with a note suggesting votes for both of you be withheld come the next election; sounds like a good idea to us.
Regarding some of the comments published in The Tribune from people who spoke at the meeting we would respond as follows:
Susan Ratcliffe suggests “Senior citizens will not want to walk across six lanes of traffic to find their bits of groceries in the grand aisles of Wal-Mart” – our comments to this are noted above.
Brian Holstein said “There are six grocery stores in the north end”. We know of three which I suppose could be considered to be in the north end.
Food Basics at Stevenson & Eramosa – does not carry lots of brands, carries items in large packages & large cans (not suitable for 1 and 2 person households) and you have to pack your own bags (not easy for some folks).
Zehrs Eramosa – is going to close when the new Super store opens up in the Watson Road area.
Price Chopper – Stevenson & Speedvale – not exactly around the corner, you pack your own groceries and that parking lot is a nightmare.
We have never been in favour of big “box store” power centres in the first place. It always made more sense to shop in a mall where you could park your car once and shop out of the elements. However, now that Wal-Mart is built I see no reason not to include a full grocery. To suggest that Wal-Mart will take shoppers out of the downtown core is ludicrous. Wal-Mart and downtown cater to a whole different market.
We would like to know if all the environmental criteria that is being asked of Wal-Mart is being asked of other developments that are going up around town (City Hall for example).
Ms. Beard is the new City Hall going to use a rain water harvesting system to water trees and plants as you suggest should be done by Wal-Mart?
Mayor Farbridge has stated that the application for expansion meets the criteria outlined in the city’s commercial policy review, Community Energy Plan and official plan therefore she can find no reason to object to it. That being the case 6 & 7 Development will surely take this to the OMB and the city will pay lots of money once again to defend this decision and once again the city will lose. We the tax payers are the city – we pay the bills and over the years the amount of money that has been spent trying to keep Wal-Mart out of Guelph could have been put to much better use.
Congratulations to Mayor Farbridge, who even though she fought against Wal-Mart coming to Guelph in the first place, realizes the futility of spending tax payers’ money to no avail. Too bad both of you don’t feel the same. We thought council was looking for ways to make cuts to the budget to keep tax increases to a reasonable amount. Your decision in this instance is not in the best interest of tax payers. LM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m a resident of ward 2 I’m very very upset on your vote on the wal mart issue come the next municipal elections I WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR YOU I’m very disappointed I wasted my vote on you from the previous elections!!!!!!!!!!!! FM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well here we go again. I must really ask myself is this Council against Wal-Mart, alone, or are they simply against any type of commercial development?
Let me start off by applauding Mayor Farbridge, Councillors Billings, Wettstein and Kovach for having the good sense to vote in favour of the proposed expansion of the Smart Centre’s (Wal-Mart) site. I suggest that Councillors Bell, Farrelly, Beard, Findlay, Hofland, Laidlaw, Salisbury, Bircher and Piper hang their collective heads in shame for their lack of understanding and knowledge of what the vast majority of the citizens of Guelph want.
It was most unfortunate that Rogers Cable did not see fit to televise the Council meeting, at which the application for this expansion was tabled. This leaves one to rely on the newspaper account of the meeting, sometimes they are more than a little erroneous. It is my understanding that the same old opposers of this project were out in full force and producing the same old tired, lame reasons for this project not to proceed.
It is also my understanding that many of those Council members opposing the project where inclined to, more or less, nit pick various aspects of the proposal rather than to look at the greater and bigger picture. It must have been more than a slap in the face to staff, who supported the project, after seeing all of their hard work being shot down in flames. I ask the question “is staff always right” and the simple answer to this is absolutely not, and in answer to the same question to Council again the answer is the same, absolutely not.
I think we should be looking at what would this project mean to the City. The answer is pretty simple actually. Vastly increased tax revenues additionally, there would be hundreds of jobs created, both during construction and after completion of the stores. We are at a critical crossroads in the world of economics, not only here in Guelph but globally as well. We continually read of this plant, or this store, closing due to the current state of the economy. Yet we are prepared to reject something that would add valuable tax dollars to the City coffers and create new jobs for some who may have been displaced because their firm shut its doors. I suggest to you that most municipalities would welcome a project such as the one you turned down with open arms. The way I see it you were not even willing to send this back to staff to see if modifications could be made that would make it more palatable to you. This is perhaps an afterthought on my part; however, what we have now is a large tract of land that is producing very little in the way of Real Estate Taxes as opposed to one that would bring in huge sums. Does this make sense to you because it certainly doesn’t to me? Why just think if we could see this influx of tax dollars then it might even lessen the burden on the residents of the City, now isn’t that a novel thought.What is troubling is that this plan fits in with the Official Plan, with some minor modifications. I ask you just what is it that you want, after all you have already tanked the Lafarge property proposal. Here is what I think will likely happen now. The Developer will, again, take this matter to the OMB, which will undoubtedly take everyone’s time and more importantly money. When you consider that the land fits with the Official Plan usage and that the zoning is almost what they want for this type of development then this will probably get a very sympathetic hearing. Lets face it folks the City is growing whether you like it or not and as a result we need increased shopping facilities. Would you like to see the residents head over to Cambridge or Kitchener to do their shopping or would you rather see them spend hard earned dollars here in Guelph, not much of a decision I suggest.
I thought I had pretty well finished my dissertation, that is until I received the July 11th copy of the Tribune. I must admit that the reasons offered by some of the Councillors for rejecting this plan leave me rather speechless, not something that most who know me would ever believe. First of all Scott Hannah made you aware that Guelph is very, very deficient in commercial space. That in itself is reason enough to give the project serious consideration. I also read that Councillors voting it down were concerned about the lack of environment impact. If this is the case why not negotiate these issues. Interestingly enough Councillor Piper wanted solar panels on a white roof to which the developer pointed out that the white roof deflects heat away from the building. I could go on and on about the various lame reasons offered for turning the application aside. I must admit that Councillor Laidlaw’s reasoning that we are trying to revitalize the downtown so why on earth would we ever consider this project. Unless I have been living under a rock, or on another planet, the subject of revitalizing the downtown has been going on ever since I moved here 11 years ago. Simply stated your efforts regarding the downtown are laughable, virtually not a thing has been accomplished in this regard. You probably wish to point out that the Sleeman Centre and the new City Hall are prime examples of what we have accomplished, to which I say hogwash! The Sleeman Centre has and will continue to be a drag on the taxpayers. The City Hall is another issue. You want a skating rink and a splash pool in front of the building, admirable thoughts unless of course we were not in a terrible financial bind. If we want free public skating then open the Sleeman Centre to the residents. The splash pool may well turn out to be one of the worst decisions you or any other council has approved. We are all aware of the drunken rowdies that spill out of the bars downtown on the weekends. What happens if one or more of them are so inebriated that they jump into the pool and cause themselves, or others, serious injury? We live in a litigious society and as sure as God made green apples a law suit would soon follow.
The residents who spoke against the project are probably the same ones who spoke previously when the original Wal- Mart application was before you. Ms. Radcliffe mentioned that seniors would not be able to walk to the big box stores. The question I ask is just how are they going to get to any grocery store? Mr. Nagy commented his generation is not interested in the lifestyle that comes with shopping at power centers. He is a voice in the wilderness and not in step with most of his counterparts. Look at the introduction of the I-phone and ask yourself are these people of his vintage and did they line up for hours at Rogers? He also suggested that the center is not bicycle friendly. I ask when was the last time you saw someone going to do their grocery shopping on a bicycle, or for any other shopping I might add? Mr. Holstein suggests there are six grocery stores within minutes of the proposed site. I ask simply where are they and how big are they and what type of selections do they offer. Mr. Profit seemed to be the only one, in my opinion, that got it right when he said let them be a part of the process regarding future discussions.
The Councillors who voted against this application seemed to have minimal issues for rejecting the proposal, which to me suggests they were against it at all costs. I ask a simple question, was the proposal put forth by staff and the developer perfect in every way? The simple answer is of course not, but is that a reason to reject it out of hand without any further consultation. The answer to that one is obvious in my opinion. Get back to the drawing board and look at the application without a jaundiced eye. Take into account the wishes of what your constituents want, for after all that is who you were elected to represent. Set your personal biases on the shelf and do the right thing.
FM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am disappointed to hear that the Wal-Mart expansion application was rejected. I am even more disappointed that both of you voted against the application. Living in the north end of town, we are underserviced and a grocery store at that location would be welcomed by many. I think alot of us in Ward 2 expected your support and I am sure you will hear from many more disappointed taxpayers. I don’t accept the explanation of congestion in traffic because this can be applied in many other circumstances, i.e. we have to drive from our north end to the Stone Road Mall, or we have to drive from our north end of town to the Athletic Club, or to East Side Mario, or to Williams Coffee Pub, or to the YMCA or even to our own doctor’s office because of the lack of physicians and we have to “take what we can get”.
And don’t forget, alot of this traffic congestion would be better managed if we actually had a traffic light system in our city that was efficient and allowed more than one or two vehicles to make a left-hand turn at a busy intersection, a situation I face very morning on my drive to work.
We were looking forward to having more shopping choices available in our area and now instead we will likely again be in the middle of lengthy and costly negotiations at the OMB level.
You even went against the recommendation of your own City staff on this issue. And it will appear to everyone that again, council is driven by a vocal minority of familiar names.
It’s unfortunate that this was council’s decision. Again, as before, it will turn out to be a very unpopular move. MG
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How interesting that you voted against the expansion of Walmart, as you are also involved with the down town. Perhaps you should remember that this is the ward you represent, not the city centre. We, who have lived here for years, welcome Walmart, and any other stores at this end that don’t involve driving through at least 15 sets of traffic lights to go shopping. As for the down town, nothing will make it a success unless you clean it up. A visit there recently involved dodging pan handlers, avoiding stepping on syringes and interrupted traffic flow with the buses. In addition, the downtown does not offer affordable shopping,
and unless you can attract alternative outlets it will never be a success. The CIBC, where I bank, has their main branch there with longer hours, but because of my recent experiences, we lobbied successfully to get the branch hours at Grange and Victoria extended, using all the above as the reasons we don’t like visiting the branch down town.
Your vote has disappointed us, and will not reflect well on you at election time. We want someone who represents our needs, not those in other wards. DR~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am a home owner and resident of Ward 4 in the city of Guelph. I have lived in Guelph for 11 years now and have watched with interest as the Walmart saga has unfolded over these years. It would seem to me in looking at the vote at the July 7, 2008 city meeting that you have not learned your lessons well. Many tax dollars were wasted in my opinion to try and keep Walmart out of Guelph and the fact is that it is now here and proving to be a very popular shopping destination. Previously the residents of Guelph had to drive to surrounding cities to shop at Walmart which was an inconvenience and a waste of potential revenue to the city of Guelph both in terms of tax generated revenue and jobs for Guelph residents. As an overburdened taxpayer I would like you to support intiatives which would help alleviate the cost burden of all the wonderful projects you would like to embark upon as well as maintain the infrastructure of our city which seems to be in great need of refurbishing. Simply look at the parking lot of Walmart on any given day and you will see the proof that people want to shop there. As well, the north end of this city is in desperate need of a grocery store so why not support Walmart’s initiative to expand theirs as it is basically already there. Many seniors living in that area would love to have a grocery store handy for their shopping. Keep in mind that further shopping sprawl does not appeal to many of us and driving all over the city to fulfill various shopping needs in overcrowded stores and parking lots does not either. It not only creates more traffic on the already slow moving streets but also more pollution and unnecessary use of gasoline with the accompanying high costs. To protect the downtown area is not a good reason to vote against the expansion of the Walmart complex. The downtown is special for other reasons but does not supply shopping opportunities that the expanded Walmart complex would provide.
I shall be watching with great interest how each of you cast your votes at the next meeting and I will not be supporting any of you who vote against the Walmart expansion because I do not feel that you would have the residents of Guelph’s best interests at heart. BK