Skip to content

LETTER: We deserve better when it comes to planning the future of Clair/Maltby

'Citizens have a right to demand transparent decision-making, and outcomes which serve the public interest,' says letter writer Susan Watson
keyboard AdobeStock_55722050

Susan Watson is concerned about the role developers may be playing in future development of Clair/Maltby.

Planning for development of the last major greenfield remaining within Guelph’s borders continues at city hall.

Decisions about parks in Clair-Maltby and where they will go are landing back at council.

Few members of the public are surprised that a so-called “community consultation” process has confirmed staff’s startling 11th- hour decision last year to reposition a 10-hectare community park from a property with links to Fusion Homes to the non-profit Marcolongo Farm – a decision which would knock out a large chunk of affordable housing envisioned for that site.

The consultation process carried out by staff violated one of the most basic principles of municipal government: ensuring no conflict of interest is allowed to play a part in local decision-making.  

What exactly are the pecuniary (financial) interests at play in Clair-Maltby?

For developers and land speculators, every single hectare of parkland represents lost profit – millions of dollars of profit.  Having a 10-hectare park land on your property could mean losing out on anywhere from $200 million to $600 million of gross real-estate sales. The alternative? A cheque from the city for as little as $750,000 for agriculturally-zoned land that will be set aside as a park.

Land speculators and the local development industry have a right to participate and give input to planning processes, but there should have been a separate financial stakeholder consultation held in parallel with true community consultation. That way the distinction between input from people with clear pecuniary interest and members of the public with no financial interest whatsoever would have been transparent to both Council and citizens.

The fact that everyone was lumped together under one umbrella of “community consultation” killed transparency and allowed developers to hijack the process.

Staff claim in their “Open Space System” report that the process was not “determinative”, but that is not completely true. Phase one of the consultation was clearly determinative. It involved casting votes on different park scenarios and locations, which narrowed the choices to be considered in round two. 

The local development industry left nothing to chance.  They were out in force at both rounds of the consultation.

By any definition, these individuals all had a pecuniary interest. But unlike every single City Council meeting, this conflict of interest was not declared, and the individuals did not recuse themselves from the voting process.

Even more concerning, people were allowed to vote anonymously in the on-line consultation portion, perhaps more than once.  When this concern was raised with staff, they asserted that people were asked to check a box as to whether or not they had attended an in-person session.  

It’s also of note that staff elected to only tally positive votes for particular sites in round one, not the negative votes that were also solicited. If both sets of votes were aggregated, the Marcolongo farm didn’t even make the cut for the top choices.

Parks are a legacy we leave for future generations.  We owe them adequate parkland with the most beautiful vistas available.  Guelph’s recently completed Community Plan consultation reflected back to us that, “We’re passionate about our green spaces and the beauty of our natural environment.”

Citizens have a right to demand transparent decision-making, and outcomes which serve the public interest. Staff’s final recommendation has been tainted by a violation of foundational democratic values.  We deserve better.