Google
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, #2
Availability of information prior to a Public Meeting

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 Two

Availability of information prior to a Public Meeting
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It has always been my view that a meeting is to discuss various points of a project by participants who have been given the opportunity review, and reflect upon, what the issues are, and what is about to be discussed.

How would councillors like it if they were not given their packages of information a few days prior to a council meeting, for them to read, absorb, think about, mull over, etc? It has happened that councillors have received information the night of - the few minutes before - a meeting, and they have complained rightfully, in my opinion.

In this case, no prior information was ever given to the public.

No display boards were provided for the public to review and reflect upon.

There was no report for any member of the public to read or study.

The city's own Transportation Department had no report to read and formulate an opinion about.

The Executive Summary provided only a limited glimpse into the various options of redesign/reconfiguration of the intersection. Only two options out of a possible six were actually portrayed. None of the exhibits either in the Executive Summary or the slideshow showed the full extent of the intersection treatments, i.e., the full extent of pavement widening, the full length of left turn lanes, etc.

But the public had only an hour or so to absorb all the information thrown at them, and to make their comments and wishes known.

Even the "rules" of speaking were altered in midstream - the public was told at first that they could ask two questions each - then they were cut back to one question each half way through the discussion.

The city continues to pay lip service to the public. The city pretends to involve the public, while giving the public no information in a timely manner, and then limiting the public as to how much it can say.

If any councillor is not angry with this approach, then you have no right to represent the citizens of this community.

It happens every time - time runs out - not everyone can be heard to the fullest. I have worked in government for thirty-three years, and I never walked away from a public discussion. What is wrong with the attitude of present city staff who are paid by its citizens?

Bruce Todd.