Protesters arrived early at Gibsons Town Hall for the July 11 council meeting.
Well before the 7 p.m. start time, around 30 people were marching outside while others had already staked out seats inside.
They were there to oppose the Town’s plan to close the lower section of Winn Road as part of the George Hotel and Residences project.
In exchange, the Town would get an area equivalent to the road dedication (950 sq. metres) as a public plaza between the George complex’s two main buildings. The Town would own the plaza, but the developer behind the project would build and maintain it. The Town has also agreed to sell a subsurface “airspace parcel” to the developer for use as a parkade at a price of $61,600.
The meeting was the first chance for the public to make presentations to council on the bylaw, and all but two of the people who rose to speak opposed the road closure.
One of the speakers was Dorothy Riddle, who filed a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal just over a year ago. Riddle presented a letter from her lawyers outlining the case, which is based on Riddle’s mobility difficulties.
“The elimination of vehicular access down Winn Road to Gibsons Harbour will effectively eliminate our client’s ability to independently access the waterfront,” the letter says, going on to claim that’s a violation of Section 8 of the Human Rights Code. Riddle urged council to put off a decision until her complaint is heard, and study a design that would allow vehicle access to the waterfront.
The Town is also dealing with an application for a court injunction to stop the road closure, filed last March by a group of residents led by Marcia Timbres. They claim the Town has not followed the proper process. Timbres also addressed the meeting, but Mayor Wayne Rowe said he couldn’t respond to her questions because of the pending court case.
Former councillor Lee Ann Johnson raised several issues, including unanswered questions about what happens to the public space decades from now if the building is no longer used, why a residential lot equivalent was used to set the value of the airspace parcel and why it wasn’t put out to bids like sales of similar municipal assets. Her comment that she’d be willing to pay $63,000 led to one of the lighter moments of the meeting when others started yelling out their own bids.
Resident Michael Storr questioned whether the Town was actually getting a usable public plaza, saying of the proposed design, “Right now the design shows not a plaza, but an alleyway between two buildings.”
Suzanne Senger, who ran against Rowe in the 2014 election, accused the Town of “sneaking this [road closure] through on the agenda of a regular council meeting in the middle of the summer. I think that’s very disrespectful.”
She also challenged Rowe and Town officials to provide proof that they’ve been given a legal opinion on the deal. The issue of clarity was also raised by other speakers, who said there’s no finalized plan for the plaza people can view and the legal agreements lack plain language.
Others said they were worried that selling the airspace parcel could weaken the Town’s ability to protect the aquifer, and several said the view corridor across the plaza won’t be anything like the view down the existing Winn Road.
Janet Crosby, who lives on the upper portion of Winn, was one of several opponents who spoke with obvious passion. “How can you justify taking something so precious from us?… We are the ones who are going to suffer the consequences,” she said. “We’re asking to keep our access to the Winn Road waterfront. You may trust the developer, but I don’t. I really, really don’t. He doesn’t have the same feelings that we do about where we live.”
Gibsons artist and filmmaker Sarama made the same point. “You have taken so much from this community with the way you’ve handled this situation. So much from myself, my wife, our neighbours.”
The presentations went on for about an hour, and when time came for council to debate adoption of the bylaw, Rowe said many of the issues raised weren’t directly relevant to the road closure and had already been dealt with during the public hearings on the project.
Rowe also countered the argument that the bylaw was being pushed through with little notice. “As far back as 2013, the plans clearly showed that there would be some sort of exchange of Winn Road… It was clearly outlined in the public hearing materials. This is not a last minute thing at all,” he said.
Coun. Jeremy Valeriote acknowledged the emotional tone of the speakers. “The decision [to rezone the George property] was made over 18 months ago, and I think it’s emotional for all of us to have to relive it. I have to say I admire the dedication of people who don’t agree with it.”
In the end the bylaw was passed 3-0, with councillors Silas White and Stafford Lumley absent.
The George project still requires development permits covering geotechnical, environmental concerns and remediation, and protection of the aquifer before building permits can be issued.
