Kingston Concerned About the LVEC
Currently known as the "KROCK Centre"
Formerly the "Kingston Regional Sports and Entertainment Centre" or KRSEC
Formerly the "Large Venue Entertainment Centre" or LVEC
Home   News
Major issues with the
Place D'Armes / Ontario Street Intersection, #1
Peer Review

At the end of October 2007, Bruce Todd identified several major issues with plans for the Place D"Armes / Ontario Street intersection. This intersection is adjacent to the LVEC.

Bruce Todd's points about the Place D"Armes / Ontario Street Intersection

#1 Peer Review
#2 Availability of information prior to a Public Meeting
#3 Telling the Public Why the Intersection has to be Reconstructed and Signalized
#4 A conflict of Philosophies  
#5 Baffled by Words
#6 Road Reconstruction/Rehabilitation
#7 Impacts of Various Traffic Scenarios  

To: Councillor M Gerretsen , Councillor B Glover , Councillor D Hector , Councillor R Hutchison , Councillor J MacLeod-Kane , Councillor R Matheson , Councillor L Osanic , Councillor S Meers , Councillor E Smith , Mayor H Rosen , Councillor L Foster , Councillor S Garrison , Councillor V Schmolka

Cc: "Morris, Malcolm" , "Laubenstein, Glen" , Deanna Green

Subject: October public meeting re Ontario Street at Place d"Armes - Major Issue Number One

Peer Review

It was my recollection back this summer that Councillor Bill Glover wished to move to peer review the proposal to reconstruct/realign the above-noted intersection, proposed in the Downtown Action Plan in 2003, and adopted in the IBI Transportation Study for the KRSEC (LVEC) located on a portion of the North Block.

Councillor Glover's motion did not get fully deliberated upon as time ran out, but at the next council meeting, the CEO recognized the intent of the motion and indicated that the wishes of Councillor Glover would be addressed.

Here is Councillor Glover's motion -

Peer-review motion

What appears to have happened is that a consultant was selected that has done a lot business with the city, Totten Sims Hibicki (TSH) in particular, AND, a peer review was not done. BOTH PARTS OF THE RESOLVE CLAUSE WERE VIOLATED.

The public meeting of October 30, 2007, presented, in a very terse way, a series of options as to how the intersection could be upgraded/reconstructed. It did NOT present a justification, or an agreement with previous submissions, to alter the intersection.

In my opinion, Councilor Glover did not in any way have his motion fulfilled.

If I am correct, the CEO needs to account to Council as to what went wrong here. Council should not let these proceedings slip by without a public explanation.