 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
|
Bulletin
SAVE UNION STATION, Bulletin No. 8, January 13, 2003.
********* 1. Actions – what you can do right now. Attend the public meeting planned by the city for 1 pm, Saturday January 18, St Lawrence Hall (King and Jarvis Streets.) Details on the meeting are found in section 4, below. Attend the session which will consider the terms of reference for the Public Advisory Group which the city has called for 11 am on Saturday January 18. See Section 5, below.
2. What we’ve being doing. Over the last six weeks, the Save Union Station Steering Committee has been gathering as much information as it can about the bids and the bid process. We have met with representatives of the TTC, GO Transit, and VIA Rail and now have a much better idea of their needs and wishes. We have been surprised to learn that the Request for Proposal documents prohibits the bidders from having any contact with these organizations – which is probably why the Union Pearson bid is so derelict in addressing transportation issues. It is extraordinary to think that the company that wants to control Union Station for the foreseeable future is prevented from determining for itself what the transportation needs and challenges actually are. We have been looking closely at the sketches provided by both bidders, Union Pearson and LP Heritage +, and have a good understanding of what the differences in the two plans are. We are attempting to establish a meeting with Union Pearson, and hope to provide information by January 17 which fairly compares the two schemes so members of the public and members of council can actually see what each team proposed. Unfortunately this is made exceedingly difficult by the rules established by the city. The rules do not permit the full detailed bids to be made public. The rules of the bidding process seem to have been designed to exclude the public. We have attempted to ensure the matter remains before city council. Our attempt to be listed on the December 12 meeting of the Administration Committee so that various Unions Station matters could be debated was rejected by the chair of the committee, Doug Holyday. Our attempt to be on the January 10 meeting was similarly rejected by Mr. Holyday. It is regrettable that this matter has received such slight political attention. Several members of our Steering Committee were in attendance at the meeting of the Toronto Preservation Board on January 9 which by chance we heard might deal with Union Station. We were lucky to be there. At that meeting, city staff presented a 37 page document – available only a few minutes before the meeting began – asking for approval of many of the changes Union Pearson wants to make to Union Station, including excavating under the VIA Rail concourse to create a food court and preparing the West Wing to be used as a hotel. One of our members spoke, pointing out several contentious issues: * city staff promised that heritage issues would get a full and public hearing before the Preservation Board – yet in this case there was no public notice and the key report was not available until the meeting was almost underway * it is wrong to give approval to and start implementing parts of the Union Pearson bid when the bid has never been approved by council * it is impossible to make judgments about the proposed changes when full architectural drawings are not available. City staff argued they were only asking for `approval in principle’ – a trap bureaucrats often use to catch the unwary. The Board was not pleased with this advice. (It is a board composed mostly of citizen appointees, and includes councillors Kyle Rae, Jane Pitfield and Peter Milczyn.) The Preservation Board agreed to defer the matter, although after members of our Steering Committee left the meeting, staff asked that the Board reopen debate. Fortunately, the Board continued to support deferral, suggesting that a special meeting of the Board be held during the week of January 20. The pressures being exerted to both curtail public debate and to secure approvals of the Union Pearson bid are quite amazing.
3. Our letter to the City Solicitor We also delivered a letter on January 9 to Ms Anna Kinastowski, the City Solicitor. It reads: Dear Ms Kinastowski: We have been reviewing the Request For Proposals document for Union Station, dated August 2001. Section 1.2.1 reads as follows: 2)(ii) …under no circumstances are Proponents to contact Tenants of Toronto Union Station, TTR, GO, TTC and VIA or their consultants, or City staff or its consultants, concerning this RFP. We are aware that a board member of SNC Lavalin, which is a part of the Union Pearson group, has a board member who sits on the Board of GO Transit. In our opinion, this is a breech of this section of the RFP since it provides the highest level of contact possible between the parties. We are aware that this link between the Union Person team and GO Transit was raised in October 2002 as a possible conflict of interest. This shows that the link existed for at least a period of 12 months and would not be considered to be fleeting or unknown. Our opinion is that it is a substantial breech of the terms of RFP and must require the disqualification of Union Pearson. Please assure us that this is the case. Yours very truly, etc.
We will inform you of any reply.
4. Union Pearson bid approval put off – for a while City staff had promised last October and November to report on the bid to the January 10 meeting of the city’s Administration Committee. However, staff have now said they will report to a special meeting of the committee to be called later in January. So far, a date for that meeting has not been established. On January 2 the Steering Committee wrote to Councillor Holyday (copies to other members of the Administration Committee) stating that we agree with the idea of a special meeting, but we want to be ensure there will be adequate notice of that meeting, and that all staff reports be made available to the public ten days in advance, as is normal for city meetings: and that the matter not be rushed through city council on February 4, but that there be at least six weeks between consideration by the Administration Committee and consideration by City Council. As of January 10, no reply has been received to our requests.
5. City holds another public meeting The city’s first public meeting on the Union Station bid process occurred on November 25, 2002, and according to those in attendance, not much in the way of new information was revealed. Now a second public meeting has been proposed for Saturday January 18. Here’s the notice the city has circulated: **
Union Station Restoration and Revitalization
Public Information Forum
A public information forum about the City of Toronto's plan to restore and revitalize Union Station will be held on Saturday, January 18, 2003. The forum is another opportunity to optimize public involvement and input in an informal format on the proposed concept design for the restoration and revitalization of Union Station.
When: 1 p.m. - 3 p.m., Saturday, January 18, 2003
Where: Great Hall, St. Lawrence Hall, 157 King Street East (wheelchair accessible)
In attendance at this meeting will be:
* members of the Union-Pearson Group
* Councillors Doug Holyday, Brian Ashton and Paul Sutherland
* members of the Union Station Restoration & Revitalization Public Advisory Group
* City staff.
This forum was first announced on December 19, 2002. An advertisement about the forum appeared in the January 8, 2003 edition of the Toronto Star (GTA section).
5. Will the Public Advisory Group have any power? Bulletin No. 7 included a description of our Committee’s proposal to create a Public Advisory Committee. We proposed a board committee of many interests with a mandate to seek out and report on information before any decisions are made, to structure citizen participation in the public interest, and report to council or its committees in a timely fashion. The city’s notice of the January 18 indicates that the city apparently thinks it has already established the `Union Station Restoration & Revitalization Public Advisory Group’, although we are unaware when that occurred or by what body. Save Union Station Committee was asked by the city to appoint a representative to sit on the committee, and on January 2 we replied we would first like to see the proposed terms of reference and the proposed membership. A reply from Patty Simpson, the city lawyer in charge of Union Station RFP, reads as follows: **
I can advise that the following groups will be represented on January 18 to `meet with the Councillors and then attend the public information session:
St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association
St. Lawrence Market BIA
South East Downtown Economic Revitalization Initiative
Toronto Railway Historical Committee
Transport 2000 (a GO rider and VIA passenger)
Traveller's Aid Society
Other contacts have been made but are not confirmed.
As Councillor Holyday indicated to you - please provide the contact to represent Save Union Station in this group.
This smaller group will be attending at 11 am - in advance of the public `information forum - to meet with the Councillors and discuss what role they `can play to assist them. This will include a discussion of terms of reference.
Administration Committee directed the three councillors to assist City staff `to expeditiously formulate a public consultation and public input process `that optimizes public involvement in reviewing all aspects of the concept `design, including transportation components and heritage strategy.’
** We are pleased the city is pursuing this idea in some form, but we wish we had more details on exactly what is intended. Is membership close to what we had proposed? (Our suggestions included, for instance: historical context, heritage, heritage development, transit, land use planning, financing and revenue, architectural design, interested citizens, commuters, and retailers.) Are the committee powers close to what we had suggested? Our intention is to send representatives to this pre-meeting at 11 am. We believe a public discussion of a group such as this is critical, and would urge other members of the public to attend and make their views known. Since it appears there is no intention to allow the Administration Committee to debate this matter, and that Saturday morning at 11 am will be the only opportunity for public input, we urge everyone interested in the future of Union Station to attend this meeting. Admittedly, this is an odd time and place for this discussion to be taking place. But we should seize the chance to participate in this discussion.
*** Please consider sending this Bulletin to a friend. If you have not received this Bulletin directly from the site and wish to subscribe, send a short note to to signup@saveunionstation.ca, and please visit our website at http://www.saveunionstation.ca |
Contact Us: info@saveunionstation.ca