You are not logged in.

#31 2010-01-24 22:55:05

curious
Member
Registered: 2008-03-03
Posts: 242

Re: Done Deal

why has Mr. nelson's writng style changed so mrkedly?   am I the only one who sees a differrence?

grammar speelling structure argument

completely different.

Last edited by curious (2010-01-25 00:35:46)


The adjective 'random' describes the weaker mind's inability to grasp the larger pattern.

Offline

 

#32 2010-01-24 22:58:16

curious
Member
Registered: 2008-03-03
Posts: 242

Re: Done Deal

Ghost writer you had me at " Check out"


The adjective 'random' describes the weaker mind's inability to grasp the larger pattern.

Offline

 

#33 2010-01-25 22:15:27

CommonMan
Member
Registered: 2008-02-04
Posts: 270

Re: Done Deal

I attended council tonight and must say, why, oh why why why is Michelle Duffels permited to speak to STRATFORD council?  She doesn't live her, doesn't pay property taxes here and should BE FRIGGIN QUIET!  Her defense is she pays school taxes since her son attends a school in Stratford- WRONG!  You pay school taxes via your township to the province which happens to allot to a public or catholic school system- not a specific school.  So, GO AWAY.  Get on the Larry Ryan, Lloyd Lichti crazy bus to a far away place and stop wasting our council's time and the citizens of Stratford will be happier for it.


Shop Local-Live Local-avoid Big Box stores at all cost-be a true Stratford citizen.  Its worth it!

Offline

 

#34 2010-01-25 22:48:53

mr.nelson
Member
Registered: 2008-02-06
Posts: 416

Re: Done Deal

To Stratford City Council and Staff,        January 25th, 2010

RE: Public Meeting for the consideration to declare a portion of the St. Patrick Street Parking Lot surplus

I am here as a concerned taxpayer, and I am also on the board of directors for Perth County Crime Stoppers. I would like answers to my questions in writing from the council and staff to help understand the process of many issues that come to mind.
I would like to get the information sufficient enough to see the whole picture; and to speak about the city considering declaring the part portion of the St. Patrick street parking lot surplus and the overall concept of the plan being considered for the development.

•    Are there parking studies that support the amount of parking that is shown in the plan? (Q# 110 Ron Shaw cross examination)
•    I would also request to council to provide me with the

My request is for the documents are to review the financial impact for the Master Plan or the Cooper Site Development Concept Plan as it is described on the document.
•    The development clearly shows Block one, Phase one is a campus building of 45,000 sq ft. What is the timeline and number of phases required for full and finished development of the site?
•    Where does the 400 room Residence fit into the picture as described in the Deloitte Report? What phase of the development is the residence to be built?

•    Why is the Block one the only urgency of the matter at this time, and blocks 2, 3, 4 are still going to remain the city’s ownership when the University agreement is 8 acres?
•    The blocks 1,2,3,4 are 7.5 acres so by entering an agreement with the Ymca does that make up the difference of .5 acres?
•    Why not give the University all the lands at once and not in 4 separate blocks as shown on the picture?
•    Who is designing the Cooper site Development Plan?
•    How much will be spent on cleaning up the contamination on block one and what is required to make it for University’s use?
•    Is the Ymca responsible to help pay for some of the cost of clean up?
•    If we retain block # 2 how do we gain access to our own parking lot , and
•    are their any parking studies for the city that can justify why we need over 1100 parking spaces?

The document provided shows that the current Ymca will be relocated to the bottom right hand side of the picture; there is also library and Auditorium in the picture as well.

•    Why is the plan calling to demolish the Ymca?
•    Is the city expropriating only for the University’s use?
•    I was under the impression the Expropriation was to build a new campus to teach some 600 students, but this plan shows 15,000 square feet per floor. You could put that inside the main existing building 12 times. Its 185,000 square feet.
•    A Reuse plan can save the taxpayers and the city money; grants are available for economical reuse projects.

The plan As I see it is to demolish all the buildings and trade places with the University to make smaller buildings, bigger parking and forget about the Heritage of any interest to the site.

•    Do you now have to declare the Downie street parking lot surplus to make way for a new library, and Auditorium?

•    Where is the Skateboard Park going to go it’s not on the plans?

If the expropriation was to build on Lawrence Ryan’s land, we have been misinformed about how the whole process works. I would like a reply in writing as to the terms and reasons of Expropriation and for what purpose.

Also in the Deloitte Report it describes that the economical earnings will be 42 million annually for this area.
I would like a full copy of this report as well.

As an election Year has just begun and the residents have pondered over the problems pertaining to the Cooper site for many years, I am wanting to look at all the possibilities to constructing the University and our downtown core; the right way, not for a buck and a promise like so many other deals that have come back to bite the pockets of the City Taxpayers many times before.

In closing I am requesting that I receive in writing the answers and studies that are available and defer this matter until such time they can be provided to me. The surplus is not needed. If the parking lot really was surplus it means it is not in use. The Ariel photos show however the parking lot is full and is not at all what you would call unused surplus land.
You’re asking the University to trade the lands that you expropriated for its use; to build 45,000 sq ft campus on 1.3 acres of the 17 acres, only to bulldoze all the heritage buildings and make a large parking lot that will look like the Cami Plant.
I have taken the time to research what is important to me; I have copies of the minutes of settlement and the university’s agreement. I took time to request the documents from the city clerks office which I have received, to see the big picture as well I had spent a few hours at the city’s court house to view and paid for copies of the documents.
Take time to proper planning, maximize your heritage and if its not possible to keep the lands as they are, do it the right way so we don’t all pay for it for years to come.



Sincerely,

Michelle Duffels

Here is a copy of the Letter from Michelle Duffels that she handed out after the meeting. In my opinion she made a few good points.


You Can't Fix Stupid!

Offline

 

#35 2010-01-26 07:25:25

CommonMan
Member
Registered: 2008-02-04
Posts: 270

Re: Done Deal

Hey Larry, or Mr.Neilson or whoever you are.  Duffels got sucked into being Ryans mouth last night and got caught for trying to fake being a citizen of our city.  She's not and as such should go away.

Her points- not one was valid- why, she doesn't live here.  If a citizen of Stratford steps up, then I might care, but until then- go away (Larry, Lichti, Duffels).


Shop Local-Live Local-avoid Big Box stores at all cost-be a true Stratford citizen.  Its worth it!

Offline

 

#36 2010-01-26 08:18:27

Steel
Member
Registered: 2008-02-16
Posts: 2521

Re: Done Deal

CommonMan wrote:

Hey Larry, or Mr.Neilson or whoever you are.  Duffels got sucked into being Ryans mouth last night and got caught for trying to fake being a citizen of our city.  She's not and as such should go away.

Her points- not one was valid- why, she doesn't live here.  If a citizen of Stratford steps up, then I might care, but until then- go away (Larry, Lichti, Duffels).

Commondude...I second that motion....all in favour....

Offline

 

#37 2010-01-26 13:22:00

rankinfile
Moderator
Registered: 2007-12-28
Posts: 843

Re: Done Deal

Well, I guess I don't feel encumbered with the baggage that some feel over Miss. Duffels.  Not sure where this all comes from--apparently as a result of association with "those people".  So be it.

I am a resident and rate payer here in Stratford--so perhaps my comments will "count".

I share some of Miss. Duffels concerns.

My understanding that the need for the expropriation of the Cooper site was to enable the building of the University campus.  It would appear from the information presented to date (or at least my knowledge of some of the information)---that the current building site does not "need" the footprint of the existing Cooper structures.   Hmmmm...

Can the existing structure be preserved and or used for new uses??  To me, from drive by examination---it is an ugly mess, lacking any significant architectural value.  Can new uses be built in to the existing structure?  Perhaps, but probably at a higher costs with little "added" value.  I would vote to tear it all down, or at least most of the structure.  Perhaps keep a part of the central portion and adapt the old building IF there is any real need to preserve a portion of this part of our past history.

The comment is made that there is  significant part of the property that is parking lot that is surplus to the needs of the City.  I too, see this site as being used for parking at the moment.  Where is the surplus need??   

Why tear down the buildings if only to use the footprint for parking??  Are we not proposing to get rid of parking that now exists?  Sorry, this just does not make sense.

I think it is a valid question to see the "big picture".  I would speculate that there is a need for part of the Cooper foot print to be used for residential university needs.  But at the moment, I haven't seen it.  And I think this is Miss. Duffels point.

Perhaps she has some other agendas behind her probing   (given the apparent associations) -- but I, a rate payer--would support her questioning of the need to declare half the existing parking lot surplus.

Offline

 

#38 2010-01-26 13:39:57

Steel
Member
Registered: 2008-02-16
Posts: 2521

Re: Done Deal

rankinfile wrote:

Well, I guess I don't feel encumbered with the baggage that some feel over Miss. Duffels.  Not sure where this all comes from--apparently as a result of association with "those people".  So be it.

I am a resident and rate payer here in Stratford--so perhaps my comments will "count".

I share some of Miss. Duffels concerns.

My understanding that the need for the expropriation of the Cooper site was to enable the building of the University campus.  It would appear from the information presented to date (or at least my knowledge of some of the information)---that the current building site does not "need" the footprint of the existing Cooper structures.   Hmmmm...

Can the existing structure be preserved and or used for new uses??  To me, from drive by examination---it is an ugly mess, lacking any significant architectural value.  Can new uses be built in to the existing structure?  Perhaps, but probably at a higher costs with little "added" value.  I would vote to tear it all down, or at least most of the structure.  Perhaps keep a part of the central portion and adapt the old building IF there is any real need to preserve a portion of this part of our past history.

The comment is made that there is  significant part of the property that is parking lot that is surplus to the needs of the City.  I too, see this site as being used for parking at the moment.  Where is the surplus need??   

Why tear down the buildings if only to use the footprint for parking??  Are we not proposing to get rid of parking that now exists?  Sorry, this just does not make sense.

I think it is a valid question to see the "big picture".  I would speculate that there is a need for part of the Cooper foot print to be used for residential university needs.  But at the moment, I haven't seen it.  And I think this is Miss. Duffels point.

Perhaps she has some other agendas behind her probing   (given the apparent associations) -- but I, a rate payer--would support her questioning of the need to declare half the existing parking lot surplus.

Of course all of this looks at the only building he university needs is the initial 45,000 sq ft one. The intent is or at least should be, to have enough land in the same spot to be able to easily expand the university and also to have additional land for expansion of private tech firms looking to locate here....ie a tech center.

So level the stupid ruin, build the new building, set up tempory parking lots and look to the future beyond a year from now. Finally...unlike Larry's continuous pipe dreams...a dose of reality would be refreshing.

Offline

 

#39 2010-01-26 13:48:51

mr.nelson
Member
Registered: 2008-02-06
Posts: 416

Re: Done Deal

Perth East resident challenges council's plans for Cooper site
Posted By DONAL O'CONNOR
 
A resident of Perth East tossed up a barrage of questions about city and University of Waterloo plans for the Cooper site and adjacent parking areas last night, suggesting details should all be presented before the city declares any part of the lands surplus.

"I am wanting to look at all the possibilities to constructing the university and our downtown core, the right way, not for a buck and a promise like so many other deals that have come back to bite the pockets of the city taxpayer many times before," said Michelle Duffels.

Ms. Duffels lives at RR 2 Tavistock and is the former membership secretary of the Citizens Watch committee. That group was formed in 2005 and saw itself as a self-appointed watchdog over municipal decisions in Stratford, in particular development of the Erie Street parking lot.

Last night, Ms. Duffels was the only member of the public to address council at a public meeting concerning the city's intent to dispose of a 1.3 acre block of land within the St. Patrick Street parking lot and to redesignate it for use by the university.

Questioned by Coun. Keith Culliton as to whether she was a resident or taxpayer of the city of Stratford, Ms. Duffels said she was "a taxpayer of Perth County" and her son goes to school in Stratford.

Among her many questions, for which she requested written replies, were:

Why is just one block of land going to the university now?

Why is the plan calling to demolish the YMCA?

Are there parking studies justifying the parking shown for the site?

What's to happen with the skateboard park?

Prior to the queries, city CAO Ron Shaw explained the 1.3-acre parcel is intended for the first phase of the University of Waterloo campus and involves a 45,000-square-foot building and dedicated parking.

Some of the land includes YMCA parking, and those discussions are going very well, he said.

The St. Patrick lot currently contains 228 parking spaces and 76 of those would be lost, but the Kalbfleisch lot, which the city recently acquired, will provide for 44 spaces, leaving a net loss of 32.

Those can be regained in the Downie Street parking lot, said Mr. Shaw.

Council will consider declaring the block intended for the university's first phase surplus to the city's needs at a later meeting.

In related business Monday, council backed a finance subcommittee recommendation to hold an open house to present a proposed master plan for the Cooper site.

Council agreed as well to defer the scheduling of a date for that public consultation until additional information is available, including costs and a timeline on having a heritage assessment report completed on the former CNR shops on he site.

Coun. Dave Hunt, however, said he was "just a little surprised" that someone would come forward with that suggestion 20 years after the city first acquired the property.

In an interview following the council meeting he expressed doubts about reuse of the structure following fire damage and exposure to the elements, recalling that not one of several proposed redevelopments had happened.

"How much will it cost to incorporate that building into a development"? he asked.

During council discussion, Mr. Shaw cited a demolition cost of $600,000. Coun. Paul Nickel asked whether consideration had been given to using the building for indoor parking.

The city retakes possession of the Cooper property next month following a successful expropriation process.

The city's official plan makes provision for the conservation of heritage structures and a group of conservationists are backing a request for a heritage assessment of the former CNR shops by qualified professionals.





Its a damn shame that a resident from out of town is the only one to speak up.


You Can't Fix Stupid!

Offline

 

#40 2010-01-26 14:46:23

rankinfile
Moderator
Registered: 2007-12-28
Posts: 843

Re: Done Deal

Steel.[/quote wrote:


Of course all of this looks at the only building he university needs is the initial 45,000 sq ft one. The intent is or at least should be, to have enough land in the same spot to be able to easily expand the university and also to have additional land for expansion of private tech firms looking to locate here....ie a tech center.

So level the stupid ruin, build the new building, set up tempory parking lots and look to the future beyond a year from now. Finally...unlike Larry's continuous pipe dreams...a dose of reality would be refreshing.

I agree Steel---that there is an obvious need to have sufficient land for all these new uses associated with the University and associated private tech firms.  One would presume there is some "big plan" to suggest the best plans for these uses.  I would concur--all things considered---tear down the buildings.

But neither of these arguments reflect the sanity of declaring surplus 1/2 of the existing parking lot--and proposing to offer it on the open market.  If it was proposed to dispose of it to the University for its use or for some high tech conglomerate, that too would be a worthy purpose---but declare it up front in a transparent manner---even if it needs a revision to City policy to dispose of "surplus land" to a predetermined recipient.

I can only hope that our City fathers have the foresight to require the "New development" to meet high standards of environmental responsibilities, and that the University incorporates innovative architectural ideas an not just slap up a pre-cast monolith.  The standards in our current official plans regarding building design strive only to demand the "minimum"---foresight is user driven, but can be encouraged by enlightened municipal thinking.  And this will be a "public" institution which should be open to the adoption of innovation that can be demanded of public developemnt.

Offline

 

#41 2010-01-26 17:01:21

CommonMan
Member
Registered: 2008-02-04
Posts: 270

Re: Done Deal

The declaration was noted to take place 'within the agreement with the UoWaterloo for future development of a campus and associated buildings'.  That was stated last night- so it's not like we're giving it to nut job Ryan again.  We have an agreement in place to build a university on the land.  This is simply procedural in my view and required process in order for the building to begin.  Duffells is part of the anti anything Mayor Dan and council do that is contrary to Ryanville concepts.  So, no, I don't want her or her type of trouble makers to interceed on what will be the best thing to happen to this city in 55 years. 

Can the building be saved?  Well, depends if bombed out ruins in Europe could be saved after WW2?  The exterior structure is done, but there is plans afoot to save the base and redevelop the land for good uses and some councillors are making sure re-use can't take place before it's torn down- sounds like due diligence to me.  As I read in the paper today- yep, it's historical but not heritage, not even in a wild dream.  If it could be saved I'm sure the city would, because they have too under their official plan.  I don't for a second believe council will recklessly destroy it if they can save it, but obviously even to the most rookie eye,it can't be saved.  So, lets move on. 

After all the years of Ryan and his band of morons, I'd have to hope people in this city, and this chat (who endlessly complain about a lack of growth and Ryans endless interference in our city) would be pleased to have positive growth finally taking place.  So, let Duffells bother Perth East over something to be saved out there, say Shakespeare.  But let the voters of this city get what we deserve- good growth, good future and positive outcomes and not more Ryanism.

Last edited by CommonMan (2010-01-26 17:03:55)


Shop Local-Live Local-avoid Big Box stores at all cost-be a true Stratford citizen.  Its worth it!

Offline

 

#42 2010-01-26 17:11:15

CommonMan
Member
Registered: 2008-02-04
Posts: 270

Re: Done Deal

As for the questions she has DEMANDED answers too,some are good, some are just stupid and some are just Ryan using her as a tool to keep picking a the scab.  But, it's NONE OF HER BUSINESS.

If you, or anyone THAT LIVES IN THE CITY wants these answers, they should go to council/city hall and ask- not send some Perth East resident to stir the pot up for Ryan.

On quick review of her questions, I was able to get the answers by asking Ron Shaw, the planning department, reviewing city hall docs and looking at the current plans and info available to the public.  But, its more fun for Ryan to sit in the room like the duke of idiot town with the stupid little grin on his face and deeply blank look behind the eyes while he sends in his lackies to torment council.

Stratford citizens- if you have a question, the entire council and our Mayor aren't hiding- just go and ask them.


Shop Local-Live Local-avoid Big Box stores at all cost-be a true Stratford citizen.  Its worth it!

Offline

 

#43 2010-01-26 17:17:10

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Done Deal

Hear Hear

Offline

 

#44 2010-01-26 18:42:20

rankinfile
Moderator
Registered: 2007-12-28
Posts: 843

Re: Done Deal

In the BH todayy

I've read lately that several people, including accredited professionals, are calling for "heritage" status for the derelict Cooper site.

I thought I knew where the Cooper site was but guessed I had missed something because it never occurred to me that this building, reminiscent of Second World War London or Berlin, could be considered heritage-worthy. So, I drove along Downie Street, west on St. David Street, around the corner to Wellington Street, under the overpass and east on St. Patrick Street into the parking lot. On the way, I saw a gaping hole in the east end of the building, then a mass of nondescript, graffiti-laden brick, concrete block and aluminum cladding -- all of which serves as the view for the homeowners on St. David Street (maybe they should be asked their definition of "heritage") -- and then sat in my car in the St. Patrick Street parking lot looking at broken windows, a mass of rusted steel and more squared-off concrete. Decorative masonry, gargoyles hanging off eaves, architecturally pleasing cupolas or towers, entrance arches or anything else which could be described as "historical" or hinting at the time it was erected escaped me. The city hall, the courthouse or any number of city churches are heritage sites. The Cooper site is not. Those who think it is must also believe the Lada belongs in the same showroom as a Corvette because it's a car or that my timid attempts at photography belong on the same wall as those of Ansel Adams because they are photographs. There is a difference between old and heritage, between pleasing and ugly, between useful and wasted. We need not be afraid to say so.

Then, I thought, maybe they're talking about its history. I guess a lot of trains got fixed and many people engaged in gainful employment. All work is noble. That doesn't mean you enshrine it forever; it doesn't mean the building housing it shines. Maybe they are talking about the end of an era. Well, there are railway museums and railway heritage sites across the country celebrating MacDonald's and Fulton's legacy. Our cute train station could serve as another. But not this pile of rubble on St. Patrick. Save a corner to incorporate into the new campus. A plaque would be nice. That's it. I respect Prince Charles and what he does for old buildings, but even he would do a thumbs down on this. Let's not be foolish.

My fear is that some "stuck-in-the-past" type (and I don't mean this disparagingly as those who save our real history are indispensable) will go to court and engage the city in a protracted, time-consuming exercise which will further delay one of the biggest enterprises this city has seen since Tom Patterson's idea came to fruition in the early 1950s. We need to call a spade a spade and get a shovel in the ground. The Cooper site is history not heritage!

Larry Baswick

Stratford

Offline

 

#45 2010-01-27 02:08:37

curious
Member
Registered: 2008-03-03
Posts: 242

Re: Done Deal

I am wondering if ms Puffle is resourceful enough to come up with that submission on her own.  is it Hello Ghost writer # 2?

I am starting to think these submissions are being manipulated by at the direction and discretion of members of the MTPVD. 

The Shadowy Men are still very much at LLLRRRRJ and the have hired some out-of-town guns.

(Lawrd knows, the gunslingers like RTO wouldn't give them a drink of water on a hot day)

Last edited by curious (2010-02-03 00:09:23)


The adjective 'random' describes the weaker mind's inability to grasp the larger pattern.

Offline

 


Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB