To the editor:
The city, through Brook McIllroy, is seeking public input Thursday into Phase 2 of the Waterfront Master Plan.
The master plan tender which closed last March states that the Plan will consider the incorporation of the following:
Thunder Bay Art Gallery; marina expansion and boat launch facilities including potential relocation options;breakwall improvements; number of slips required; charter-boat slips; Temple Reef Sailing School (relocation?); proposed waterfront trail; additional parking (including parking city is building to lease to hotel); proposed extension of Sleeping Giant Parkway to Sixth Street Overpass; identification of additional development sites for other potential future waterfront facility users; cruise-ship terminal, and other multi-use facilities.
Concerning to me is the comment, “The city is also looking to review the festival area north of Prince Arthur’s Landing as part of this master plan update, “given the extensive use this area is experiencing.”
Why did improvements not happen to the festival area when the park overhaul took place?
Why now when plans are coming forward for the land south of the Pearl Street entrance?
I've seen no difference in the use of the festival area; perhaps some at the city didn't realize before now how popular the site has always been. Could we see a re-location of the festival area to south of Pearl Street?
It's quite likely that condo occupancy will affect events at the festival area. A vehicle- and pedestrian-free corridor will need to be maintained to allow emergency vehicle access to the condo buildings. The level rail crossing cannot be depended on.
Picture the park on Canada Day. How would an emergency vehicle get quick access?
This situation was known and previously commented on. It cannot be attributed to unexpected, extensive new use of the park, as a result of recent improvements, which is also stated as the cause for future paid parking, as stated at the waterfront meeting.
Are we being squeezed out of the park we paid to revitalize?
The meeting seems a formality; it would be impossible to “prepare a vision” in the short time allotted. It seems the future uses have been decided, as before, without our input.
Let's make sure the city knows we want to maintain the existing park layout, so suited to the many excellent city-run public events happening there. And also, keep public use, and the public purse, as the priorities as development moves south.
Patty Bates
Thunder Bay
