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 residents of the city, in spite of the diligence and integrity many of you consistently display. I implore you to make meaningful public consultation early in the planning process a higher priority in the future.

Respectfully,

--

Aaron Mavrinac www.mavrinac.com “