This might seem to be a strange question but it is quite relevant to the discussion about the proposed Lansdowne partnership proposal.
Most people think of Lansdowne Park as the area, enclosed by fencing, which is occupied by SuperEx. When SuperEx is on, you have to pay to get into Lansdowne Park.
Most of us are also aware that there is adjacent parkland which is not normally thought of as Lansdowne Park. Signage indicates that this is Sylvia Holden Park.
Sylvia Holden Park is made up of a narrow strip of land along the south side of Holmwood Avenue. That narrow strip is in two parts with a break where the back of the Horticulture Building comes out to Holmwood. In addition there is large piece of land between O’Connor Street and the canal which contains two baseball diamonds, grassed areas and a splash pool.
Many of us have assumed that the partnership proposal calls for the strip along Holmwood to be turned over to the Municipal Service Corporation and then passed on to OSEG. The plan calls for stacked townhouses along Holmwood. We have believed that the ball diamonds and the land "north of the fence" which resembles a traditional community park is retained by the City. This is incorrect.
The Memorandum of Understanding included in the partnership package released on Sept. 2 is very clear on this point. Clause 3.4 (probably mis-numbered and should be 3.1) says "The project will involve the whole of Lansdowne Park and Sylvia Holden Park."
In the short term this would mean negotiating with OSEG to use the ball diamonds – potentially an issue for Little League folks and others. In the longer term, this means the potential re-purposing of a classic park for residential or other development.
Once the park is in the hands of the Municipal Service Corporation and under long-term lease to OSEG, there is no specific impediment to changing the use of the land. No doubt, re-zoning and site plan approvals would be required, but I have read nothing which is intended to restrict the actions of the Municipal Service Corporation in pursuing income.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bob's excellent analysis shows that the City taxpayer is really going to be screwed with the Lansdowne proposal.
ReplyDeleteThe OSEG's lack of clarity on the financial front should cause all citizens and City councilors - including CFL football lovers - to object strenuously.
How can City council and the mayor, who have so miserably managed finances during their term, contemplate for a moment the bloated give-away that OSEG is proposing?