CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council,

Please add Mr. Mavrinac's strongly worded opposition to my email of Saturday June 6, in response to which I have not received any reply. As someone who has lived near Riverside Drive at both ends of the West Side (both Oak and Huron Church), I concur wholeheartedly with every point of his argument.

Sincerely,

B. Lyster

“To the Mayor and City Council,

I am writing to express some thoughts and concerns I have regarding the proposed Celestial Beacon project on the riverfront at the foot of Askin Avenue. As I expect and hope that you will receive a substantial volume of feedback on this matter in the short period between the public announcement of this project and the council meeting on June 15 where I understand it is to be discussed, I will endeavour to be concise.

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