I am a homeowner in Ward 3 on Riverside Drive, and a frequent user of the full length of the riverfront parkland. As such, I am normally very happy to hear about investment in Wards 2 and 3, and have welcomed most of the development associated with the CRIP. However, I cannot help but object to the proposed Celestial Beacon project in its current form, on several grounds.

First, I object on the grounds that it is inappropriate for the riverfront site. I have lived almost my entire life between the north end of Campbell Avenue, Sandwich Town just past the Ambassador Bridge, and my current neighbourhood at Riverside Drive and Elm Avenue; I have been a daily user of the riverfront parks since before the initiation of the CRIP. This park's attraction, and a priceless asset for Windsor, is the open, semi-natural space and unobstructed view of the riverfront—this is not merely my opinion, it is embedded in the original language of the CRIP and even in municipal by-laws. The proposed development purports to integrate harmoniously with this vision, but in fact violates it in multiple ways.

A previously open, public area will be fenced in to create a private event space. The structure housing Streetcar No. 351 appears very much to obstruct the unobstructed view of the river. But more importantly, this area and the parking lot adjacent to it are already used at maximum capacity on a regular basis during the warm months. This development will irreversibly displace those activities, and presumably require parking and transportation infrastructure that does not presently exist somewhere in what is now parkland and a residential neighbourhood. I understand that the Celestial Beacon has long been part of the CRIP and would not object to any implementation; it is the specific nature of this development (enclosed private event space) to which I object.

Second, I object on the grounds that it is an inappropriate location for Streetcar No. 351. The City spent an enormous amount of tax revenue procuring and restoring this key piece of local history, and now appears to be thoughtlessly exploiting it to attract federal subsidy for a project in which it otherwise has no place. Two other sites were proposed for the streetcar that made much more sense: on University Avenue, where it originally ran (and which could sorely use some investment from the city in any case), and my personal choice, adjacent to the AGW, where it would still be in view of its original route, and additionally be associated with other local history exhibits at the Chimczuk Museum. Either location would bring an attraction to a space that needs it, rather than displacing activity at a space that already attracts maximally. The Virtual Open House for the project makes mention of the Spirit of Windsor; an interesting parallel, given that monument actually sits on a historically appropriate site.

Finally, third, I object on the grounds of process. Administration, Council, and the Mayor pay much lip service to public consultation, but it has been my recurring and frustrating experience, with developments in my community, that very little meaningful public consultation in fact takes place. In this case, I recall that a single public meeting took place in 2018 requesting input on a location to house Streetcar No. 351; there was no follow-up or any other evidence that this feedback was considered at all. From what I gather, the next indication residents received about the plan came when city staff began removing (beautiful, irreplaceable) trees from the site at the riverfront. The current round of public input, in the form of a survey, comes mere days before the relevant council meeting, and does not request any input of substance regarding the development itself. It has taken a grass-roots effort on the part of citizens to spread word of this abruptly announced project even to residents who live within view of it. That sends me a clear signal that my elected officials and Administration do not, in fact, desire meaningful feedback from me or other members of the public, and instead have already made decisions behind closed doors, and are attempting to push the project through as-is with a minimum of hassle from the residents it is supposed to be serving. You may object to this characterization, but like it or not, this is the reputation Administration, Council, and the Mayor presently enjoy among a great many