Special Report: Pearl Company

Council Suspends Zoning Enforcement for Culture Industries

A newly approved council motion establishes a Community Improvement Plan for the Creative Cluster and suspends zoning enforcement for existing creative businesses.

By Ryan McGreal
Published October 14, 2010

this article has been updated

Ward 2 Councillor Bob Bratina just issued a statement to local media indicating that last night's Council meeting approved his motion instructing planning and economic development staff to suspend "enforcement of the zoning and sign by-laws for Arts and Culture users" within a community action project area.

His motion also calls on staff to study a Community Improvement Plan for the Creative Industries cluster. A Community Improvement Plan is defined under Ontario's Planning Act as a formal municipal plan that identifies a community in need of support and outlines what needs to change to address the community's needs.

The legal framework gives municipalities flexibility to change land use rules, zoning, development charges, loans, grants and incentives to achieve the goals identified in the Plan.

The motion indicates the city's formal commitment to healthy neighbourhoods, adaptive reuse of existing buildings, and growth in the arts and culture industries, but notes that the city's Official Plan is still pending provincial approval, a situation that creates "uncertainty as to the timing of the implementation of the new Zoning By-Law".

Bratina, who is currently a candidate for mayor, confirmed in a follow-up email to RTH that the motion gives the Pearl Company, located in Ward 3, a reprieve from their current legal woes.

The City has charged the Pearl Company with violating the industrial property's residential zoning by hosting an art gallery and theatre, whereas the owners maintain their business is a legal, non-conforming use. City staff maintain that the company must apply for a rezoning, but owners Gary Santucci and Barbara Milne maintain that this would incur potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in rezoning, development, parking, and cash-in-lieu-of-parklands fees.

According to Bratina, his original wording would have applied to all legal actions, but the city's Legal department advised against this. "The argument was that Council should not be seen to be interfering with matters before the courts."

As a result, the City will not lay any additional charges for potentially violating creative uses as of October 13, 2010.

As for the status of the previous charges, Bratina clarified: "No one is immune from charges related to illegal or unlawful activity, nor can such immunity be granted by Council. We can and did withhold imposition of charges regarding the operation of the company under current regulations."

Here is the full text of the motion:

Whereas the City has identified "healthy neighbourhoods" as a strategic priority and the City Manager has initiated a strategy to create healthy neighbourhoods;

Whereas the City fully supports the Arts and Culture through the Economic Development Strategy and new City of Hamilton Urban Official Plan;

Whereas the new Urban Official Plan provides policy direction for the encouragement and growth in the Arts and Culture sector by calling for the preparation of Community Improvement Project or community strategy to enhance and support the arts and culture sector;

Whereas the new Urban Official Plan provides policy direction for creative thought to be used in developing adaptive reuse of existing buildings;

And whereas, the Ministry's delay in approving the new Urban Official Plan, timing of the resolution of appeals provides uncertainty as to the timing of the implementation of the new Zoning By-law,

Therefore be it resolved that the Planning and Economic Development Department be directed to initiate a study of a Community Improvement Plan for the creative industries cluster (Arts and Culture), together with a review of City policies and by-laws, including but not limited to the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and incentive programs to grow the City's Art and Culture industry.

Further that enforcement of the zoning and sign by-laws for Arts and Culture uses, at properties within the study area, where the use was in existence on October 13th, 2010, be suspended until the results of the study are presented to Council and any recommendations implemented. Such suspension of enforcement shall not include any action that is presently before the courts or any violations/actions covered under the Ontario Building Code or Fire/Health related regulations.

Council Vote Breakdown

According to the City Clerk, the motion was moved by Bratina, and seconded by Bernie Morelli, councillor for Ward 3. (Note: these are draft minutes and have not yet been approved by Council.)

Two councillors were absent, one was opposed, and the rest voted in favour.

Update: updated to add the council vote breakdown. -Ed.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

48 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 14, 2010 at 10:21:02

You know, I have my problems with Bratina, but we could do a lot worse. And if he and Fred split the urban vote, it very much looks like we will do a lot worse.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 10:24:51

Pxtl, I think Bob has good traction in the suburbs. Folks out there are the prime demographic of CHML and they've been listening to him for decades. Unless I'm living in a bubble, I can't believe these so-called polls. I don't know a single person voting for Larry or even considering it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 10:29:54

Do you know the vote breakdown? I would hope Morelli voted in favour. It's the least he could do.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By omro (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 10:44:30

Shouldn't this have been Morelli's initiative? Years ago?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PseudonymousCoward (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 10:52:45

Looks like Morelli's online lackeys just mass-downvoted any comments that dare criticize his failure to take a leadership role on this file.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted October 14, 2010 at 11:01:57

It will be interesting to see how this works out. On one hand, there's some pretty big problems as a policy - will this give club developers like Vranich free reign over neighbourhoods? Or will it spur the development of hundreds of new, small, and innovative venues? Probably both.

What will be most interesting is how new establishments relate to neighbours without these zoning laws hanging over their heads.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 11:20:14

Looks like Morelli's online lackeys just mass-downvoted any comments that dare criticize his failure to take a leadership role on this file. - PseudonymousCoward

Actually most unbiased people I have talked to see plenty of blame to go around with regards to the Pearl Co. issue. I'm no Bernie fan, but this fuster cluck isn't just Bernie's fault.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 14, 2010 at 11:24:34

@Kiely

I would agree with you if Morelli had made a half-hearted attempt in council to mitigate the situation. But the fact is that local issues need to be championed by their local rep, and Morelli didn't even bring it up in council. He let the councillor from a different ward do that.

His job is to represent the interests of Ward 3 to the council. That's why he gets a salary. That's what he was elected to do.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 11:26:07

What will also be interesting is how the rules will define "culture industries". This would especially relate to if the Vranich scenario will happen or not.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 11:44:20

It sounds like this motion is to act as a bridge between now and when the official plan is approved by the Provence, I'm not sure if that is correct so if anyone can clarify that for me please do. It appears a study must be done before the Community Improvement Plan can be implemented and therefor there will be a waiting period before any action takes place. Does anyone have any idea on how long it will take for the Provence to approve the official plan and how long it will take for the city to have the CIP study completed? Reading the Ontario link seems to prove the CIP study as very doable but lengthy considering the stakeholder consultations required.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 14, 2010 at 12:06:48

Looks like Morelli's online lackeys just mass-downvoted any comments that dare criticize his failure to take a leadership role on this file.

I have determined that "cantweallgetalong", "playnice" and "snookumzs" are multiple sockpuppet accounts created by the same person for the purpose of 'gaming' the comment scores.

  • They were all created at the same time.
  • They all have the same password (I can't see the passwords themselves but I can match the hashes).
  • They all vote in tandem.

This is a straightforward violation of the RTH discussion guidelines and comment voting rules. As a result, I have deleted these accounts and removed any comment votes cast by them.

I invite the person behind these sockpuppet accounts to create one legitimate user account and to post comments and cast votes under that account in a manner consistent with the site guidelines.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 12:09:21

I would agree with you if Morelli had made a half-hearted attempt in council to mitigate the situation. - Pxtl

So you believe it is ALL Bernie's fault? I think not.

Is Bernie at fault? Sure. But there are plenty of other culprits in this mess... including an owner who decided to take an ignore and/or challenge approach to the process from the very beginning. I live in ward 3, I support places like the Pearl opening in my ward but it doesn't change the fact the owner handled this situation very poorly. He couldn't even bother getting basic building permits… is he above having to pay those too?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 14, 2010 at 12:31:11

Do you know the vote breakdown?

I just got a response from the City Clerk and updated the article with this information.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 14, 2010 at 12:32:11

Does anyone have any idea on how long it will take for the Provence to approve the official plan and how long it will take for the city to have the CIP study completed?

I don't know the latter, but the former is expected to take something like two years before all the pending appeals have been sorted out.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By FenceSitter (anonymous) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 12:43:37

Why does the Province have to approve the plan?

Can someone help me here.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 12:53:38

Kiely,

I just posted the following here: Morelli Responds on Pearl Company Situation I think it also applies on this thread as well.

It's really not as simple as what it appears to be on the surface. If The Pearl had paid $1200 and waited 60 days for community input for a non-conforming legal use BEFORE opening the doors NONE of this acrimony would be happening, NONE. The much sneered at and derided 'Process' allows the people that live in the immediate community a chance to voice concerns when a change to a building's official use is made. It would have also allowed the owners of the building to defend their intentions and plans. It is a two way process when applied AT THE RIGHT TIME allows everyone to state their case, however petty it may seem to others. The citizens of the neighborhood were there first and thus I personally believe have a say and stake in any changes BEFORE they are made. In my eyes the citizens were there first and have a right to be heard. This process however you feel about it was by-passed by the Pearl, they opened before consulting the community in a formal manner. Because the owner of the Pearl were obstinate in not thinking they had to go through the process it has become the hugely expensive zoning change. I think considering the past uses of the Pearl the owners would have had a strong case for a quick approval, the only roadblock being parking which has since been addressed.

I have posted many times on this subject, my issues with the Pearl are not consulting with the local citizens and the following hue and cry by the owners that a great injustice has been done to them. They were aware of the risks, took a chance and lost... stop making this everyone else's problem. Maybe that's harsh but I have yet to hear any admission of any accountability for the horrid, divisive mess this has become from the owners of the Pearl.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Gary Santucci (anonymous) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 13:21:51

Mr janitor

The Planning Department is on the record as being in opposition to an application to the
Committee of Adjustment. They would also appeal any positive outcome for our application. The situation would have been sent back to the Economic Planning and Development Committee to rule on the appeal. Until yesterday there was no political will to deal with the root causes of the situation that we and others face. I have posted on this very item before. My offer still stands to meet with you face to face to walk you through the complexities so that the correct information will be out there and not be misrepresented.

Mr Clean (a.k.a.Gary Santucci)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 13:24:18

I have posted many times on this subject, my issues with the Pearl are not consulting with the local citizens and the following hue and cry by the owners that a great injustice has been done to them. They were aware of the risks, took a chance and lost... stop making this everyone else's problem. Maybe that's harsh but I have yet to hear any admission of any accountability for the horrid, divisive mess this has become from the owners of the Pearl. - mrjanitor

I hear ya' mrjanitor.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 14:22:08

Didn't they also approve the aerotropolis last night as well?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 14:45:55

The warehoutropolis? Yes, they did.

Apparently Councillors Ferguson and Pasutas' kids are getting university degrees on how to drive a truck. Those two guys keep talking about how great it will be for their kids to get a job in Hamilton once aerotropolis is built.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 16:07:32

Jason, is there something wrong with working in a warehouse or driving a truck? At least they pay property taxes, unlike churches.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 17:02:24

...is there something wrong with working in a warehouse or driving a truck? - Capitalist

I think there are quite a few people in my neighbourhood that would love to have either of those jobs.

Some people forget about those that don't have the chance to pursue post-secondary education... or perhaps they just don't give a rat's ass about them???

I don't think the AEGD is the best way of providing those job opportunities though.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 18:11:14

I have zero problem with truck driving, hotel service jobs, restaurant waiters etc.... but I feel that the public is having their intelligence insulted when those councillors go on and on about how great it will be for their university educated kids to be able to get jobs in Hamilton instead of having to stay in Ottawa or Montreal etc.....

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing their kids aren't going through several years of university so they can come back to Hamilton and work at a warehouse by the Caledonia Airport.
Council needs to be honest about what their own report shows the job mix will be up there instead of tricking the public into believing that it's another MIP.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 14, 2010 at 18:14:59

In case there was any uncertainty as to what the jobs entail, they're spelled out here. It's mainly unskilled, low-pay service work in warehousing and logistics - even the "prestige business" jobs.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 18:31:57

It is one thing to complain about the AEGD... it is a colossal waste of money for a very risky venture, plus we still have hundereds of acres of employment lands available, so the whole thing reeks of a backroom deal scam. But complaining about the jobs and especially the type of jobs just has a bit of an elitist tinge to it.

We need jobs in this city, all sorts of jobs. If you take a walk down Barton St. you are sure to find people who would be very happy with being a truck or forklift driver. If you want to complain about the AEGD, complain about the cost, the risk, or that it is being sold to us based on empty promises and utopian future projections.

I can't speak for others, but the complaining about the type of jobs or that the jobs don't meet the needs of the citizens of this city, or somehow aren't the type of jobs this city needs, or whatever the argument is, certainly leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 14, 2010 at 19:19:25

I'm all for a variety of jobs for people of all skill sets. Personally I've worked a wide variety of jobs, from unskilled service jobs paying minimum wage through semi-skilled technical jobs paying slightly above minimum wage, skilled technical and professional jobs paying quite well - and I've been grateful for every job I've ever had.

What I object to is a plan that diverts hundreds of millions of public dollars into servicing a huge greenfield industrial park that:

a) Is nowhere near the people in this city who most need jobs;

b) Will at best provide mostly marginal, insecure service jobs paying minimal wages instead of providing pathways to more skilled, higher-paid, higher-valued work;

c) Is based on a spent economic model that I strongly believe is already broken and will become increasingly ridiculous as global oil supplies slide into permanent decline;

d) Is planned at a time when existing, highway-accessible, already-serviced greenfield industrial sites are being rezoned for single-family residential and big-box commercial use;

e) Is planned at a time when thousands of acres of existing, already-serviced brownfield sites that are actually close to the people who need jobs sit empty, abandoned and defined out of existence.

I would rather take hundreds of millions of dollars and use them to remediate our brownfields while providing a business-friendly regulatory environment for urban reinvestment and adaptive reuse of existing infrastructure and building stock.

Richard Gilbert proposed in a major report prepared for Council a few years ago that Hamilton should seek to make energy conservation and energy production its economic priority #1 - a nascent and fast-growing industry that will provide a variety of jobs ranging from unskilled through semi-skilled, highly skilled and professional and will tend to be distributed among many small businesses that are proven engines of job growth.

Please do not regard me as "elitist" because I believe Hamiltonians - even poor, unskilled Hamiltonians - deserve better than an unambitious pipe dream that will do little other than provide free servicing for tomorrow's residential home builders.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By TnT (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 19:20:43

So, getting back on track, does this mean that the Pearl Company can stay open and not pay fines pending approval in 2 years? Or is it too late for Gary and he is already pulling up stakes?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By beesplease (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 19:51:11

Is there any indication what area of the city is included in the 'community action project area'?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 21:22:37

But complaining about the jobs and especially the type of jobs just has a bit of an elitist tinge to it.

I'm not complaining about the types of jobs, rather the way in which the jobs are being presented to the public. Council should just present the facts as they are without all this rhetoric about university grads flocking to Hamilton because we're going to give them so many options at AEGD. No we aren't.

I'm also concerned that some councillors were concerned about how hard it could be in the future to change this to residential sprawl land if companies don't show up (which has been known to happen around here).

http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/20...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted October 14, 2010 at 22:36:22

I saw Vranich mentioned...

This better not help him and his vacant properties.

Anyone know what is being done with the Hess/King apartments? There's no roof so is it going to go through another winter open to the elements?

I thought City council was trying to stop things like that from happening?

*Turns on the Jelly-Signal*

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Paul (registered) | Posted October 15, 2010 at 02:58:12

Back to the jobs for a second, just because we have high unemployment and many desperate to make ends meet is not a reason to bankrupt the city and provide just enough for some to get work to scrape by when we should be investing in development that actually brings jobs that are secure and pay enough to let families live without taking 3 or 4 jobs to make ends meet. We have plenty of un/under used skills of all kinds in our city we just need the opportunity to put them to use. We do not even know if there will be any it is all just speculation.

Council constantly pointed to a past as a time of higher employment and security. but we were even smaller then and not so in the pocket of developers so we did not create endless housing developments without the job market to support it. Now we have so many unemployed we are willing to sell off our most basic necessities air, land, water food, for the least secure lowest paying employment. Is that all Hamiltonians are worth? No.

We certainly can do better but not if we keep putting the same gang of misfits in control of our future.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 15, 2010 at 08:14:53

Please do not regard me as "elitist" - Ryan

I said complaining about the type of jobs has an elitist tinge to it and the only reason I bothered to even bring it up is because this isn't the first time I've read this clap trap about the "type" of jobs in this forum. There are very valid reasons to oppose the AEGD... type of jobs created is not the best one.

I don't see why you would take that remark personally Ryan?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 15, 2010 at 09:41:39

Yes, but Kiely the aerotropolis is being sold to us on a platform of job creation so it is entirely appropriate for those who understand what is happening to clarify exactly what type of jobs are destined to be created (if any at all).

I happen to believe that there will be zero job creation regardless. But it is definitely worth pointing out that IF jobs are indeed created, they will be few in number (as far as concentration of jobs per acre) and low in pay. And on top of all that, they will be located in just about the least accessible place in the city in terms of proximity to those who would be seeking such positions.

Jobs must be discussed in this forum because we have a serious lack of jobs here.... and you can't talk about "jobs" without discussing the different grades of pay and skill sets etc.

It would be inaccurate and inappropriate to try to discuss our problem keeping citizens employed if we just used the word "job" as a blanket that covers everything form babysitter to brain surgeon.

In the end, it is about the type of jobs as much as it is about the number of jobs.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 15, 2010 at 09:57:41

Kiely, as much as possible I try to keep my analysis and arguments at the level of the issues themselves. However, if you direct a personal statement at me, i.e. writing that my concern about the quality of projected jobs at the AEGD has "an elitist tinge" to it, I'm going to frame my reply in a personal context to address your statement. You can't have it both ways: either it's fair to raise and discuss personal motivations or it isn't.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2010-10-15 08:58:10

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted October 15, 2010 at 12:21:15

Questioning the "quality" of new jobs isn't elitist. One of the largest factors bringing down the working class in the last decade or so is the lack of analysis about the quality of jobs being lost with jobs replacing them. It isn't that I think a temp worker is less of a person than a $30/hour auto worker, but if auto worker positions are replaced with temp positions, it's a raw deal even if it's the same person (and often it is).

Many young people in this town are looking for employment, and I can tell you from personal experience that crappy jobs (warehouses, big-box stores, telemarketing etc) are common. What isn't common is anything solid, well-paying, or with much of a future. When we prioritize lands and funding for low-wage labour, that's exactly the kind of work we're going to get.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 15, 2010 at 12:26:31

When we prioritize lands and funding for low-wage labour, that's exactly the kind of work we're going to get.

AMEN!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By joejoe (anonymous) | Posted October 15, 2010 at 12:31:22

The lack of accessibility of the prospective jobs is a key factor. I've consulted for places like Rogers in Brampton and Loblaws just N of the 401/W of 410 (it's so remote I don't even know where it is!). Both locations have MASSIVE car parks - the size of airport runways - and it always occurs to me when I get there, "Everyone who works here needs a car".

These work places may have shuttle buses but clearly very few people use them - the car parks are chocca.

And so there lies the problem: Every worker needs a car. For some folks it may be their second or third car in the family. You might as well subtract 10k from the annual salary - the amount it costs to run the car.

I live in downtown Toronto where I have lots of well paying job options, and lots of available transit. I don't need to work for minimum wage and I don't need to run a car. Isn't this what every city should be striving for?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By allantaylor97 (registered) | Posted October 15, 2010 at 13:35:09

If you are striving for Toronto I suggest you move there or in your case stay there. The vast majority hate the place

Comment edited by turbo on 2010-10-15 12:36:03

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 15, 2010 at 14:09:00

turbo, you're just a big ball of negativity, you know that?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted October 15, 2010 at 14:17:35

@turbo

I know whenever I'm downtown walking past closed-down storefronts and strung-out wanderers, or biking in mad-paced traffic, I stop and think "boy, thank God I don't live in Toronto."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By joejoe (anonymous) | Posted October 15, 2010 at 14:23:52

@turbo - I did move here and I am staying here. That's my point! If all you offer your residents is low paying jobs and no transit - they will move! (If they can...)

And I don't hate TO. Why? Because there are lots of well paying jobs and good transit!

Hamilton is not on a solid path to creating well paying jobs in accessible areas. Aerotropolis is a case in point. ANYBODY can attract warehouse type employers. Just give them some ashphalt, pipes and a good tranport network. Employees are a dime a dozen because they are unskilled jobs. Welcome to Pittsburg, Cleveland, Buffalo - anywhere.

But not every town can draw in more selective employers. THAT'S the challenge Hamilton should be taking on if it wants to prosper and set itself apart.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted October 15, 2010 at 15:19:14

Aerotropolis has not even started yet and people are already commenting on "poor quality jobs" located there. Unreal.

The consultants report stated that aerotropolis could expect that 45 per cent of jobs will be in warehousing AND transportation AND logisitics. Most of the jobs in transportation and logisitics are well paying jobs while warehousing jobs are lower paying.

Further, 55% of jobs will be in other sectors.

The aerotropolis can expect to house the type of employment currently found in the nearby Ancaster Industrial Park. Have any of you even bothered to go for a drive through that park? I have. Most of the employment there is advanced manufacturing, engineering, hi-tech.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 15, 2010 at 15:40:51

However, if you direct a personal statement at me - Ryan

That's the thing Ryan, it wasn't directed at you... you chose to wear it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted October 15, 2010 at 15:45:14

...and I can tell you from personal experience that crappy jobs (warehouses, big-box stores, telemarketing etc) are common. -Undustrial

And I can tell you from personal experience a crappy is job is better than no job.

Comment edited by Kiely on 2010-10-15 14:47:31

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted October 16, 2010 at 02:16:08

I dunno...I'd take no job over many jobs, especially telemarketing (last time I tried it I was told I'm "too nice").

The thing is, we have an opportunity here to decide where these resources go and what kind of employment comes out of it. If crappy jobs are coming out, that's because crappy decision-making is going in.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adam2 (anonymous) | Posted October 16, 2010 at 12:00:07

Instead of putting money into an aerotropolis so we can all get jobs working at an airport out in the middle of nowhere, why not put money into attracting businesses to the downtown where there is easy access to the GTA and plenty of infrastructure ALREADY built and sitting unused?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Imperial (anonymous) | Posted October 16, 2010 at 15:10:52

On the Community Improvement Plan - there has been no official area defined yet for the CIP to my knowledge. CIPs and Incentive Zones do tend to limited by geographic boundaries - meaning it's extremely rare that they are City-wide (I think legally by definition they cannot be City-wide in fact). So this new zoning study will likely not help all cultural organizations in one broad sweep.

The best we can hope for is a study that allows the creative industries from across the city to voice their concerns and needs with respect to physical development and investment that allows numerous zones and programs to be created - not just a downtown, or east end or Dundas plan - but pockets throughout the City.

It would also be interesting to see if a CIP can be developed City-wide but focused on creative/cultural/quality of life enhancing indicators - so don't limit the geography > focus on the desired outcomes instead. This might encourage mixed use, creative infrastructure, more dynamic housing and park development, targeted commercial and retail (ie neighbourhood hardware and grocery stores), etc.

I really hope the City hires the right consultant/community leaders or pulls together the right staff complement to deliver a study focused on deliverable results > not just the weight of the final report.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 16, 2010 at 16:43:23

To add to Imperials' comment, from my reading on Community Improvement Plans the boundaries are flexible, i.e. the City can change them over the course of the study period.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds