2,000 Waterfront Condos in Cornwall Ontario? That was the Plan supported by the Waterfront Condo Committee UPDATED

2,000 Waterfront Condos in Cornwall Ontario?  That was the Plan supported by the Waterfront Condo Committee UPDATED

CFN –   It’s odd, listening to  the disconnected Cornwall Ontario Waterfront Development Committee speak in the video below.  In between guffaws about the “Great” story in the Seaway News….

Are the public really being misled as committee members like Pat Clarke would have you think?    In February 2010 Councilor Denis Thibault presented a plan to the Waterfront Committee of that term.   Present were Chair Lee Cassidy, Vice-Chair Gerald Flaherty, Raymond Audette, Sandy Cameron, Pat Clarke, the guy in the video above who was so bemused at people’s misunderstanding, Adelard David, current Vice-Chair Guy Menard, and Councilors Grant and Gardiner for a presentation by current member; Councilor Denis Thibault.

Councilor Thibault had a cunning plan.   He crafted and presented something called:   “The Landings”  Cornwall Riverfront Development Corporation.

That plan would lead to 2000 waterfront units in Cornwall Ontario.

Greenspace, ball diamonds, the RCAF Wing; are they really sitting idle?

And who would choose those people?

Are you feeling ill yet?

Sound familiar?  Were we media really misleading the public?  What was all that drama from some members of the committee about the use of the word “Condo”?

Why fret over the suggestion of condo’s when this plan called for the creation of 2,000 residences or condos?

Comment on the report from Council Thibault via the round table of committee members had quotes like this in the minutes:

Pat Clarke & Guy Menard

Guy Menard:

Presentation by Councilor Thibault was done well and timing is impeccable.

Pat Clarke, the gentleman protesting above in the video:

Also in agreement with Councilor Thibault and felt that the City should take ownership of the lands in order to ensure that they don’t lose control of these lands.

Sandy Cameron:

In agreement with presentation made by Councilor Thibault.  The City shouldgive authority to go ahead with the not-for-profit Corporation, sooner than later.

As a matter of fact; Kevin Lajoie, before he was rewarded by the city for his favorable reports in the Free Holder wrote about this in the February 25th edition:

“It’s moving forward instead of bitching and whining about how bad we got it,” Thibault said.

Thibault said he had the support of the majority of his council colleagues to move ahead with the idea, and he’s also gotten a lot of positive comments from various business people.

Is this support?

Councilor Rivette was on last term’s council as well. Does this sound like support?

So why has councilor Thibault been pushing so hard for this?  It certainly looks like he’s the engine behind this development.  Why the subterfuge and lack of clarity with the public?

What we have is the architect of this plan, as a lay committee member putting himself on the Waterfront committee to jam through development in Lamoureux Park and eventually along all of our waterfront lands.

Maybe that’s the best way to go?  Maybe we’d benefit more by having 2,000 condos on our waterfront.  While I’m sure many including myself would like to know more and discuss this further it feels dirty and sleazy to see this jammed through in this manner.

You get one chance to develop the waterfront if you are actually going to do that and the people of Cornwall should have a right to have a say in that via election or ballot question.

In the meanwhile the time for lies and shadow moves should end.   This waterfront committee has really impeached itself as a group and in its leadership in more ways than one.   Was there any reason to hide their true intent of their presentation to the public; of starting the process for full development of our waterfront from Brookdale to Race Street as Ed Lumley spoke out against?

I’ll leave you with words from Chair Lee Cassidy who spoke at the last waterfront committee meeting  and who was present for Councilor Thibault’s presentation in February of 2010.

UPDATED 2:30 PM June 24, 2011

From the Waterfront Committee meetings:

WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
JANUARY 20, 20111

Councillor Glen Grant:
The land could be used as a park and the lands around it could be developed for condos, which would complement the park. Plan does not have to be exactly as the Consultants have submitted. The final plan will have to be approved by Council. We don’t have to spend to the top of the range as suggested by the Consultants. If condos or other types of structures are built by a private developer, could we get some funds from the developers as they are responsible to have a certain amount of parkland when they build?

.
Stephen Alexander clarified that up to 5% is calculated for parkland dedication when a new development is created. You can also take cash-in-lieu if there is not enough land around the project to satisfy this criterion.

Patrick Clarke:
Consultants could have provided more designs and more ideas. Development with a boardwalk. No amenities – have to go to the mall. Have enough parking. Purpose of a park is so people get out and exercise. Look into reopening the canal. Need hotel and restaurant near marina. Need more options. Should develop Lamoureux Park instead.

.

Councillor Denis Thibault:

.
Like most of the comments heard tonight. Not in favour of spending to the top of the suggested option for green space and a park. Need to have more options than those presented. Took a tour with a person of the area between Civic Complex and Marina and this person was talking about a company such as Minto building a hotel with underground parking at the marina level. It could also have shops. It could also have an area for seniors to view the waterfront. Prefer to look at all opportunities before making a recommendation. Need to develop Lamoureux Park.

What do you think dear viewers of the Cornwall Free News?  Was this all rumor or was the committee simply trying to spin and hide?  Should Councilor Thibault have to resign?  Should chair Lee Cassidy resign because when you watch the video above and look at this document it certainly shows a gross deception.    Should the committee be shut down?

Councilor Thibault had not responded to our request for comment as of press time.

You can post your comments below.

Verico

18 Responses to "2,000 Waterfront Condos in Cornwall Ontario? That was the Plan supported by the Waterfront Condo Committee UPDATED"

  1. Wow!   June 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM

    Holy Gilles Latour! Wait until Ed Lumley hears about this. I bet he comes riding into town from Lancaster on a white stallion to save the park.

  2. Mare   June 24, 2012 at 2:51 PM

    No, don’t shut the committee down. Let the committee describe its vision – hopefully with full-scale architectural models, P&Ls, financial forecasts, job creation information etc. There’s nothing wrong with the City trying to increase its tax base.

    Just let the people know, and then pose this question after the next public meeting.

  3. admin   June 24, 2012 at 3:04 PM

    Mare do you think the city would be better served if this committee was flushed and reloaded?

  4. Mr.Magoo   June 24, 2012 at 3:14 PM

    HOLY COW, for a bunch (Com. members) that dislike that ugly word “condo”, it seems, to of been mentioned quite a bit, from their very mouths ? Can they explain that question, please give me an answer ? What is wrong, with coming out and state what your mission is ? By that, I would mean your true mission !
    HOLY COW, 2000 condos, on the WATERFRONT, please say it ain’t so, Con. T-Bo, or are these documents fakes ? Or, is all this just one big conspiracy, or, a misunderstanding ? If they are please respond, so I’ll stop laughing ! At 70 years old, I can’t handle much more of this ! All of these minutes, are available to any citizen, free of charge from the City . What a boom that would be, for the downtown, Le Village, etc…… It would no-doubt obliterate the Park, as we know it, but the BIA’s etc, would be ecstatic. lol
    HOLY COW, I drove up to that fancy end of town (Riverdale) and started counting the houses, their isn’t 2000 homes in that whole area, must admit though, I’d lose count quite often and then ran out of gas, so I never really finished ! lol
    HOLY COW, after 3 hours of deciphering, I concluded that at 50 units per condo, that would mean 40 condo buildings, isn’t that what ya call a ghetto ? Maybe, the Province could come on board & get half of them on rent to income ? It would almost be like the building boom , when the Seaway was built. lol

  5. Mare   June 24, 2012 at 3:14 PM

    Some might view your question as letting people off the hook. Everyone knows the public “forgets easily.” Don’t let people forget.

  6. "IMPEACH EM"   June 24, 2012 at 3:48 PM

    Hi Mare,,,, just a couple of comments & questions if I may ? Don’t you feel they (Com.) should be replaced ? Your point, is well taken, in regard to the tax base, I think we all agree, just don;t raise that tax base, by building in the Park.
    Sorry, but you lost me on P & L’s, at the public meeting, their were architectural plans for Lookout Point- Pointe Maligne. Apparantly, according to a speaker at the meeting, the Com. tossed out those plans at their first meeting, I guess, condo fever struck . Just trying to clarify & understand your points.
    Go to the City’s site & you may download a copy of the 2007 Waterfront Plan, maybe the Com. should be notified of this ? I look forward to your comments ?

  7. bigfellow   June 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM

    Did I not say in my very first comment, ” Build (1) condo on that area of concern and the rest will follow”.
    How can a person (no name, no pack drill) who is in a trusted position on the WC, state that there never was any mention of “condos”on that area concerned when, now the word is out
    for 2000 condos? Someone speaks wih fork tongue.
    Is it the people in Cornwall that are in Disneyland or is the WC and all of city hall in disney land.
    COME ON, PEOPLE OF CORNWALL, your being led down the garden path to the dumps, stupidity reins free if you do not action and get rid of the the WC and it’s city hall friends.
    Just remember, allow this idea to happen, you will NOT HAVE A WATERFRONT TO BE PROUD OF, because, there will NOT be a GREEN WATERFRONT there. There will be no RCAFA THERE, No BASEBALL DIAMOND, because all of it will be PRIVATE PROPERTY.
    It is quite apparent that there are people who do not understand at the meetings and heard, “We the People of Cornwall do NOT want this GREEN AREA to become condos or any other living accommodations”just being stubborn.
    Have a nice day, folks.

  8. Mare   June 24, 2012 at 4:10 PM

    Hi Impeach. Yes…sorry for the confusion. When I say, “let the committee explain” it’s not an agreement with what is presented (i.e. building in the park) just the exercise of full disclosure, more information. It’s a strategic marketing plan like any other and needs to be brought 3-D. BTW: P & Ls = profit and loss. Is the committee’s plan financially viable? Is there any chance it could go tits up and burden the city? All that.

  9. Had it up to Here   June 25, 2012 at 5:07 AM

    It’s had to believe but true…Patrick Clarke works for the local office of Parks Canada which handles national parks located in Ontario. He’d be more at home working for Minto or Rona.

  10. Cornwall Harry   June 25, 2012 at 1:11 PM

    I say we should flush the whole bunch with the rest of the crap! Wake up people!

  11. Jason   June 25, 2012 at 7:15 PM

    2000 waterfront condos? Interesting. My question is, who the heck is buying these, the view is god aweful.

  12. silent franco american   June 26, 2012 at 7:00 AM

    Its been talked about on the news that the worst thing the gouverment in Ontario did was downloading responsibalities to some municipalities ,like the city of Cornwall whos people lack the education to run a city of this size.This is the worst place to do business in Canada , condos are business ventures maybe you should leave it alone .

  13. Believe Me   June 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

    I can not believe pat clark works for parks canada are you sure? If thats true he needs a good talking to (tongue lashing).

  14. les habitants   June 26, 2012 at 6:38 PM

    who would choose to invest 200,000 bucks to live in an apartment? neighbors above you,under you, beside you and across from you!plus the prperty taxes are still ridiculous?? noise from the hallways, noise from the neighbors.. no thanks!!!and if you don `t like the neighbors you have to sell because the condo board may not allow you to rent your apartment..nuts!what a scam…

  15. Jason   June 26, 2012 at 11:38 PM

    @ les habitants…. yup…. condos is simply a fancy word the rich use to justify living in an apartment.

  16. jules   June 29, 2012 at 1:47 PM

    Let me tell you what happened to me, my children and other people in my high rise building yesterday. In the early morning my daughter went to work and the elevator wouldn’t open so she pressed the button to open – it was not working right. Yesterday I went down for the mail and I went on a real “joy ride” non stop until after so long when it landed on the ground floor and I reported it to the super. I was with another man in the elevator at the time. A pizza driver came and I told him about it and I got in again trying to see if it would work but again the same thing happened. I had to climb up all the flights of stairs since the other elevator was stuck on one of the floors and I couldn’t believe that I was still alive at my age. Well these so called idiots who want to build high rise buildings on the waterfront – just what kind of intelligence do these people have. I am all for development BUT NOT ON THE WATERFRONT and NOT HIGH RISE BUILDINGS either. Mr. Markell built condos in good taste and where they belong and not on the waterfront. What do you all think if an elderly person or a child got caught in the elevators like what happened to us. Yesterday a young child was on the bus with her mother and the child got off first before the mother and the driver wouldn’t let the mother off and the bus was packed with people to the gills and the young child was left alone out in Barrhaven out in the sticks and everyone calls it “Farrhaven” and not for nothing. This is what development brings as well where the bus drivers are jerks to the hilt. When you do development you have to be intelligent about it and do it in good taste. Leave that beautiful waterfront alone.

  17. A concerned taxpayer   June 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM

    Take a drive to what was 150 Edward st. (the old cotton mill bldg) & take a look at a beautiful Condo (Private) Development project. The picture is up there now & it looks good to me.

  18. jules   July 2, 2012 at 1:22 PM

    On a street in the back of me where there are very expensive houses there is a high rise condo and it used to be a nice place for people to live. Well folks now God knows who is living in there now and not so nice now. When you live all attached you don’t know who your neighbor is and tensions flare like you wouldn’t believe. I live in a high rise (I rent) and I have good neighbors but I don’t know any of them (thank God for that) being in a big city we don’t know one another and people come and go. We used to have some bad neighbors and two were across from us (one family Iraqi and another Arab I don’t know of) but were the very worst I have seen. Another was Mexicans and God help. All are long gone and things were more cleaned up. I even spoke to a woman in Chicago some years ago who lived in a low rise condo and had plenty of problems with her neighbors. I would say to the poster below me never mind what the condo looks like it is who lives there. The condo that I told you about is in a very expensive area and these condos bring down the value of private houses. We live in a complete residential area. You don’t know your neighbor until they move in. The same thing when we owned our single house in Cornwall in one of Cornwall’s best streets and best areas and we had our problems with people. When one neighbor sold his house a family from the east end moved in. We sold not long after that and another east end family moved in. You have to use your intelligence on what we went through. There was an elderly lady who lived near us and she either died or was put away in a seniors home and then came the nightmare out of hell as a neighbor (renters). These condos make slums out of an area depending on who lives there and the same thing with single homes just like I said. I see it in other condos as well here in Ottawa. Condos do not belong in a park – nobody in their right frame of mind wants to live in a park – that would be hellish. You put condos where they belong and you build them in the very good taste of Mr. Markell. My husband admires Mr. Markell’s type of condos and not high rises. The people who would be living in these condos are going to be seniors and I can tell you all that seniors have to be down below. I thought that I was going to die making it up all those floors. My son climbed the many flights a few years ago when the power was out and he was in worse situation than myself and was only 32 when that happened. Here I am at 61. I climbed that years ago when the power went out and I was 6 months pregnant and I thought that I would deliver on the stairs. I know all too well about these cursed high rises. These are very dangerous to live in. Build low rise condos and not in a park.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.