Open house ran for two hours and went 45 minutes over time. Here`s the big bad ugly details.
7:09 Nearly dropped my SD card with all my pictures in my coffee cup. Great way to start?
7:10 People flooding into the church basement. Easily 200 people here, if not more, might even end up being standing room only. Harvey Smith is here, the MMM “we don't give answers” consultants, AT Project Coordinator Kevin Nixon, Bill Woroby, Pat Martin, Anders Swanson
7:15 Met area resident of 3 years Harish, moving to Canada from India in 2004, sitting beside me, commenting on the plans.
7:19 Too many people here, people standing all around the walls. Late getting started organizing so many people. They seated for 200, and there's at least that many here.
7:19 Starting, first Active Transportation open house I've been to that is actually organized, David Asper style. Even have a presentation of the 5 options, and a, gasp, moderator. Time for questions following presentation, targeting 8:30 as a target stop-time.
7:21 Moderator: consulting process, no decision being made at this point.
7:24 Bill Woroby from Public Works speaking.
7:25 Explaining stimulus funding process. Submitted 37 AT location funding requests. All 37 were approved by fall of 2009. City approved these projects in their 2010 budget, totalling $20 million.
7: 27 Funding is contingent upon these projects being completed by the fall of 2010. (No wonder they don't consult). Yup, there we are. Billy said “shovel ready.” Surprise surprise.
7:27 “It (consulting) is not a perfect process.” Bill Woroby.
7:28 Proposal DOES NOT REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. Does NOT require approval from Department of Fisheries and Oceans. (Graham's bullshit metre just broke. Only been at this for 10 minutes).
7:28 Veronica Hicks from MMM takes the mic.
7:29 Talking about community meeting with area residents, I assume, the meeting with but a handful of residents in February.
7:32 Still talking. Veronica will now go through the pros and cons of every plan. Option “A” is the big-ass 75 metre long bridge that has “1:100 flood protection.” Excuse me while I laugh.
7:32 Graham's note: Meeting Jason Ross beforehand, who stated “all of these plans have some good, and a compromise of evil.”
7:33 Option “B” affects the fishing hill. Option “C” affects the toboggan hill. Option “D” is what was drawn from the meeting with the five residents, simply upgrading the existing park as is. This option cannot be funded via federal stimulus money. Too bad they already put those fancy signs up.
7:34 Option “E” is upgrading the existing bridge. Which has “several technical considerations that would need to be addressed.” Including....wait for it....APPROVAL BY DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS. Veronica claims that there are concerns about repeated flooding compromising the safety of the structure of the bridge. This option would also not be able to access money from the feds.
7:36 Ian, representing area residents is speaking. Was part of the original resident “consultation” group.
7:38 Ian cycled over 4000 kilometres last year.
7:41 Ian suggesting we have a million dollars so maybe we should use it.
7:42 “I can live with a flood one in every 2 years. I can live with a flood one in every 5 years, I'll just ride my bike up to Portage” Receives round of applause, complete with whistling.
7:43 “No matter how much I love to ride, no matter how much I support AT....we have to be able to find something different.” Cue more applause.
7:44 Anders Swanson is up. onegreencity.com
7:45 Hmmmm...7:45. Only 45 more minutes to go? I think there might be a riot if only 2 people get to ask questions.
7:47 Anders started One Green City in 2007, working on maps for communicating existing AT networks and acquired knowledge of what people desired in different areas of the city.
7:49 Anders shows photo of Omands Creek flooding. The picture is completely misleading. The photo shows the creek completely flooded. Anders calls this “frustrating.” According to area residents I talk to, the bridge floods for only about 2 weeks, 3 weeks tops.
7:52 Anders on “Why we chose this bridge.” Portage Avenue is scary, steep slopes, steep approaches, starts talking about a train bridge....train bridge? WTF does that have to do with the Omands Creek bridge?
7:54 Bridge is narrow, approaches are narrow, bridge is stupid design he says. All are true.
7:56 Anders keeps talking about using the bridge over to Assiniboine to get to Polo Park. I have no idea what this has to do with Omands Creek. This seems like a different proposal to me.
7:56 Anders shows an absolutely ridiculous graphic showing what would happen if Portage Avenue flooded instead of the Omands Creek bridge and how it would affect drivers. Anders, let me introduce to you the apple. Aaaand this Anders, is...the orange.
7:58 New person talking. I'm not sure who she is and she's talking about some kind of universal design policy. Eyes are now glazing over.
8:00 Yes, ring the hourly bells. Half an hour for questions and community consultation/input? Hmph. Lets see how much overtime they go. Judging by how many people are here, an hour may not be acceptable.
8:00 Questions starting.
8:01 Q: Are there other plans? Are there other aspects (park improvements) as part of the plan?
A: Funding is strictly for the bridge. Other parts of the funding do not include the park.
Q: Will other bridge be removed?
A: Low level bridge will still exist if high level bridge is built.
8:02 Q: Woman is concerned about increased cycling speed in park. “Park has ravines and valleys, thats what makes it beautiful. I like Omands Creek the way it is.” Round of applause.
8:03 Q: Questioning why the money cannot be moved to another project, why there cannot be a community committee to view and have dialogue with City. Can we have a proposals for 20 million dollars (worth of trail upgrades) before we're at the shovel-in-the-ground stage? More applause.
A: Double-speak. Starts talking up the Federal guidelines, money has to be spent by March 31, 2011 and specific application to the projects that were approved. Money cannot be transferred anywhere without approval from the Feds. EPC has to approve transfer of City funds.
8:07 Q: “I am tired of cyclists. Cyclists should not be allowed there. A sign should be placed that says 'please walk your bikes through the trail, walk your bike over the Assiniboine bridge.' “ Is also concerned about safety with increased bicycle traffic.
8:10 Q: Derides the February consultation meeting in favour of this “true” public consultation meeting. “Why is the City exempt from an environmental process?” “Will pathways accessibility be maintained? Will pathways be cleared in winter? Who will provide funding to provide true universal access to the park? Is there commitment from City or the Province?”
A: “We received a letter saying we were exempt (from environmental process).” Given a blanket statement saying they were exempt from all projects for this. Talks about winter clearing budget funds.
Dude is being taken to town by this woman, going back and forth with her in the audience.
8:13 from my count, at least 18 more people lined up to speak.
8:15 Q: First kid up to speak. “We don't need the bridge cause it's only flooded for like 3 weeks and you can just walk around the block and get some more excercise.” Huge applause. “And save a million bucks.”
8:16 Q: City should spend money on bridges across the river (Assiniboine Bridge I assume). Says something about using an existing structure at the end of Aubrey to build a new bridge.
8:17 Q: Teacher from neighbourhood school. “Omands Creek is not a place to get across, it's a place to go to.” Has some students reading prepared statements. Very nice. Kids refer to it as “a valley.” Are worried about the environment. Four kids from her class read statements.
These are some seriously well-spoken kids. Kudos to this teacher.
8:20 Q: From Jason Ross, resident for 31 years. Claims Omands Creek is a historical site, though is not designated as such. Is a place where people can make new friends and meet people. States that there is less and less free entertainment in the world. Points out that we did “not win a lottery from Saudi Arabia, this money is still coming from our pockets.” Comments on the fact that if a new bridge was constructed, and will not include removal of existing bridge. Suggests we “rejuvenate the land that is already there.”
8:23 Q: Dude supports changing the bridge. Considers the existing bridge “an existing nightmare.” Claims the bridge was under water for 10 weeks last year. States the bridge does not serve the purpose it should. However, does not agree with any of the proposed ideas. “Let's not delude ourselves to thinking what we have at Omands Creek is doing us any good today.”
8:25 Q: Woman states she attended the first meeting in February. Would like to see the bridge elevated, but keeping in nature with the park. “Unfortunately all of the bridges proposed are of street level. It is disappointing to see one of the options we proposed was (turned into) a combination of options D and E. What we had asked for was that the existing bridge and approaches be improved....and that it be maintained. Why can't options D and E be funded with the same pot of money?”
A: Feds are strict on what they approve. Sum up his bafflegab: has to go through a lot of red tape, and are under time restraint to complete project by March 2011. He keeps referring to this deadline. Is really starting to bother me. Spend it or lose it! Spend it or lose it! Bridge! Bridge! Big! Yay! Funding, yay!
Basically is saying any alternative would have to go through all this bureaucracy to fund an alternate plan that most of the residents seem to favour, simply upgrading the park. As if they NEED the Fed funding.
Graham's Note: It's a million dollars to make a fuckin' giant bridge, not to upgrade the park with some new pavement.
8:30 Still a lineup of people. How many will they let speak? Going in to OT.
8:32 Q: Parent emphasizing the environmental value of this place, few places where children can access a natural environment and play in natural spaces. Is not keen on any options, would rather not spend the money. “Omands Creek is too important to rush a plan through just because the Feds set some kind of deadline.” Introduces two students, Natalie and Lidia from grade one from Laura Secord School to speak. (Lidia is having some stage fright). “Please do not put the bridge there. I like sliding there in the winter and I like rolling down there in the summer.”
8:36 Q: “I think my grandmother chained herself from the Wolseley Elm.” Very nice. Has been surprised by AT system being put up. References the “monkey trails” as have others. Has some interesting comments, but lots of rambling, not sure how to sum it all up.
8:41 Q: “Anything that is left there still has to be maintained. Any street I've come across in Wolseley is in need of dire repair. If you call a cop you get put on hold, and 311 isn't much help at all. I don't think anyone in Ottawa cares what gets built here in Winnipeg. It's about time the people driving this stuff here started dealing with what we need. Let's get serious.”
8:43 Moderator tells rest of people to keep things “succinct.”
8:43 Q: Ross Eadie is up. I believe he ran for the NDP? I'm pretty sure I voted for him at the time. For those who don't know, Ross is legally blind and uses a walking cane. “This current bridge proposal does not have to be the only way you achieve universal design.” Is not in support of a new, big bridge. “It sounds like this one didn't quite start off right.” Wonders if there is not an option to build a bridge a bridge elsewhere, says using Portage Avenue is not an option for those who want to use the natural environment the park offers. Takes issue with people who claim accessibility must be maintained 100% of the time, says he uses snowshoes in the winter and takes his kids to enjoy the winter environment. Says “give us the million bucks so we can build our AT corridor over Redwood bridge to Kildonan Park.”
8:48 Q: Kid speaks....says he comes from Toronto, where there are lots of hills to slide down but that “Winnipeg barely has any.”
8:49 Q: Teacher is reading statements from her students. Many people are beginning to leave around now.
8:52 Q: Little girl talking about tobogganing with her friends and sister. Starts laughing while telling her stories about going to Assiniboine Park. “I think the kids have a right to say 'no' to the bridge.”
8:54 Q: Another little girl: “Why do they have to spend the money on Omands Creek and not something else?
A: City officials treated her question as a comment and did not answer. 'Tis unfortunate.
8:55 Q: Guy rants about taxpayer money and the provincial and federal governments. Ranting hard. Really really hard. Is upset about the “distance between government and the people.” Finds consulting process “appalling.”
8:56 Q: Says the Wolseley residents take care of the park, picking up garbage and planting new trees every year. Says green space is limited and very valuable in Wolseley. Suggests 4-metre wide bridge will invite teenagers to drive their cars over the bridge and into the baseball area.
8:58 Q: Concerned about process, “not just in Wolesley but throughout Winnipeg.” Says AT is not just about cyclists, but about other forms of active transportation as well.
9:00 It would seem they stopped addressing people's questions and concerns and are just letting people talk now.
9:00 Q: “This is a horrible process. People feel, whether it was in the capital budget or not, people need to know.” This woman uses a walking cane and wonders how people think a street level bridge is any more safe to people such as her. Thinks we should ask the question “what are we trying to fix? And go from there.”
9:02 Q: “We have few natural wonders in this City. This is one of them.....When the City steps in, it's disastrous. Do we all remember the concrete blocks they put in the creek?” Is also concerned about increased speed of cyclists.
9:05 Q: “One million dollars? That's a lot of money. Why does the government come to us and say we're going to build this bridge? Why can't we as a community build the bridge? I look at those pictures, and I don't see any recycled materials in that bridge. And the other thing is, why does it have to be so big? Why does it have to be for a 1 in 100 flood?”
9:06 Q: Little boy talking about tobogganing into bridge pillars. Talks about “the valley” (kids seem to refer to it as a valley. Funny how our perspectives change).
9:07 Q: Harish, who was sitting beside me is speaking. “Politics in India is practised rather deviously. If I may look into the future, what is to stop them from saying in ten or fifteen years, lets make it wider and make it for cars and use the space to build other things?” Questions lack of environmental consulting.
9:10 Q: Two more people speak...not much new.
9:11 Q: Teenager suggests people go see what is under the current bridge. “What will be under the new bridge will be disgusting.”
9:12 Q: Last speaker. “You can't do everything for everyone. But can we make a good route for cyclists to go around the park?” States there is apparently private land along the creek and wonders how that will affect things.
9:14 Moderator states they have taken all the information down. I wonder if I took better notes? Billy states his thanks on behalf of the City for people's input and for coming out and to make them recognize the concerns of the neighbourhood.
9:15 Community member asks when new project will be shown to the residents. Billy says recommendations will be made by May, then to some committee and “some of that information will be transferred back to the community.”
9:16 Dude asks if there will be another meeting showing the new plans.
Billy says no.
A few people stand up voicing their disappointment. No shit, Sherlock? Someone suggests emailing everybody at this meeting. Billy says okay.
9:17 That's a wrap folks.