Thread by @mmburton

In case you are looking to understand the Council history on the Park Hotel vote I've got some links for you. Also, the City website search function is SO MUCH better now than it was in the past so if you search "1 Clift's-Baird's Cove" you can get lots of info:

On Sept 12 2018 Committee of the Whole debated whether or not to consider the Park Hotel. Here is that agenda: stjohns.ca/sites/default/…

Here is a CBC article from the same day: cbc.ca/news/canada/ne…

On Sept 17, 2018, a Decision Note was prepared for Council following the Sept 12 COTW discussion, updated to include a referral to the Built Heritage Experts Panel and a need for a Land Use Assessment Report which were requested by Council. That note: tinyurl.com/y9as7mmu

On Sept 24 Council again debated the application during the Regular Meeting, minutes here. Myself, Cllr Jamieson, and DM O'Leary opposed the very concept of Council "Considering" the application and pushed to not entertain it at all: tinyurl.com/yasl6u5s

On Sept 11, 2018, prior to ANY Committee or Council discussions on this application, I engaged heavily online, with over 200 comments presented on my Facebook page alone. I was careful to make sure the public understood WHAT was going on, in as many details as possible:

On Sept 25, there was more media, interviewing the mayor: cbc.ca/news/canada/ne…

And here is a screenshot of some of the media dating back to 2018, as they reported on each stage of the Committee to Council to Public Consultation. I did not do an exhaustive search:

On Sept 12, myself, Jamieson, O’Leary tried to shut it down then—we motioned that the hotel should not be considered but the motion was defeated. I was there via phone (before Escribe!) while on a coaching work trip in San Antonio, so Cllr Jamieson introduced the note and motion.

So all of this is JUST September 2018. And people were aware of the development "proceeding" for consultation then. I was criticized just for asking people "what do you think" as I gave the public an opportunity to debate it. Here is what the chatter was: facebook.com/pg/maggieatlar…

After Fall 2018, the application went through the jiggs and reels of staff review for the Land Use Assessment Report and in Sept 2019, the file went through the Built Heritage Experts Panel with this information note for their input on design: pub-stjohns.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ash…

When the BHEP finished reviewing the design and staff assessed the LUAR, then they put it out for public review and comment, advertised in the paper on Nov 23, 30, and Dec 7 2019; emailed to 1444 residents via e-scribe, advertised on City + Councillors (me!) SM, + city calendar.

The City received 40 written submissions to the public meeting request for public input and 20 people attended in person. Again, media were present and coverage was consistent across the various outlets. Here's an example from NTV: ntv.ca/downtown-store…

And here are the Dec 11 public meeting minutes: tinyurl.com/ybjadog3. In the petition it states that 26 letters were tabled. That is an oversimplification of submissions, we received input from 2018-2020. Here are 137 pp of letters fr Mar. 2020 alone: tinyurl.com/y79wpffp

Here is the Jan 27 2020 Council meeting where we debate the Park Hotel yet again: tinyurl.com/ybjadog3. I motion that we NOT approve the hotel. Defeated 6-5.

And again, media coverage eg the Telegram w news that Council approves hotel: tinyurl.com/ycm3fgyr

Here are the written submissions by the way prior to the Dec 11 Public Meeting: pub-stjohns.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ash…

So. Following the public meeting of Dec. 11, Council Approved In Principle the changes necessary for the hotel to proceed on Jan. 27. On February 17, Council again debated the changes. Juanita Mercer reported the following: thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/pu…

And then prior to March 11 for the public hearing, we did the same public notice process as the public meeting in December, advertised Feb 22 & Mar 7. We received 28 written submissions in response to that. In addition to much discussion on- and offline.

So, Council approved in principle the development in January 2020 in a 6-5 vote. Prior to that, 3 of us (me, Jamieson, O'Leary) consistently tried to get Council to not entertain the proposal at all. After public engagement & LUAR 2 more councillors (Froude & Lane) came along.

All the arguments presented in the petition were made to council repeatedly over a 1.5 year period prior to the approval in principle. Nothing new. I made many of the same arguments. Council WAS informed of public opinion, and chose to disagree with the public. That happens!

There is a difference between process and politics. Your beef is with the politicians who voted for this, not the process. With non-partisan representative democracy, at the end of the day the individual people you elect make decisions and must govern responsibly and fairly.

As an elected official, I try to govern *with* you, and believe in horizontal, non-hierarchical leadership where possible. I share my perspectives openly and freely, often making myself quite vulnerable in the process. This has been difficult to navigate, but I believe in it.

I as well as others represented the opponents of the development of the Park Hotel consistently and vocally. I believe Council made a bad decision, but it was a democratic decision made after several real opportunities to engage. Council DID hear you. Our side lost.

Now--prior to development approval being granted, Council still has to set the terms for air rights, and design must be finalized as a part of that. 1/2

We voted on the following in January: "That the applicant considers using an alternative colour palette as displayed on page 13 of the LUAR. That the design of the Harbour Drive façade be determined prior to development approval." So keep an eye out for discussions of design 2/2

Also, 60% of the petitioners on the "St. John's Citizens for Atlantic Place Consultation" are NOT residents of St. John's. This stuff matters. About 2K St. John's residents signed it, not 6K.

Council can rescind votes but must be careful. We have given a zoning approval and I do not believe anyone has acted in bad faith. I worry about public confidence in Council if decisions are reversed in the absence of new information that could have impacted the votes on May 10.

I care about good governance and am uncomfortable with changing course on a decision that was made democratically on a development. Will all future proponents of developments wonder if Council will keep its word on zoning approval? Do you believe this is fair or just?

I realize that municipal government is not a judicial body and is not bound by precedent in the manner that the courts often find themselves in. But it is still an important consideration, that people building a triplex or a hotel alike feel that they can trust in a fair process.

What would you have me do in this situation, folks? My email and DMs are open as always. I am still limiting my time on social media, but as the rep for planning I felt compelled to respond to the Notice of Motion of recision presented by the Deputy Mayor last night at Council.

*rescission* :-)