Is THAT City Report Really So Controversial?

Before Christmas, the first draft of a report was leaked that indicated that when it came to relations between Guelph City Hall and local developers and businesses, the relationship was less than ideal. The report was incendiary, especially with City Hall critics and those who are especially displeased with the administration of Mayor Karen Farbridge. To them, the report confirms their worst fears about the direction of the city and the perception of the Royal City to those with the deepest purse strings. But is the report really as bad as all that? From my point of view, it is not.

The crux of the matter, to me, is that the report seems to be saying that the City won't let business do what it wants, and that should stop. That's overly simplistic, and that's not to say the report doesn't have some valid points, but I think the criticism really comes down to the fact that Guelph is overly conscious of its land use, and that we should pull back and let business do what it thinks is best. It's a stalwart conservative principle that government is an impediment to good business, and the less government interference the better, but with "Places to Grow" dictating that Guelph can only grow within its own borders, does it make sense that the City should start taking down the speed limit signs? Probably not, but as I said, the matter is somewhat more complicated than the report, and it proponents, would have you think.

Let's look at some excerpts.

Page 9:

However,
there are 
somewhat 
divergent 
views 
on 
this 
issue
 of
 acknowledged
 complexity.
 External 
participants 
typically 
say
 that 
the 
City 
makes 
things
 unduly complex 
and
 that 
it 
is 
next 
to 
impossible 
to 
keep 
pace 
with
 and
 understand
 City
 policies,
 directions 
and 
requirements.
 City 
staff 
are
 more
 likely
 to
 say that
 those
 who
 want 
to
 do 
business 
in
 Guelph
 need
 to
 take
 the
 time
 to 
review 
and 
better
 understand 
the
 range
 of
 relevant 
factors
 — 
from 
sewage 
treatment 
and
 ground water
 capacity
 constraints, 
to
 required 
studies
 and
 reports, 
to
 process
 requirements
 and
 associated
 timelines.

Ever spent a summer in Guelph? Every heard of those colour-coded warnings for water use levels? Frankly, maybe its a good thing that the City makes builders aware of various issues before - I don't know - building a giant water fountain that has to be shut off in July if we go predictably long stretches without rain? Could this be a service issue? Would this be easier if developers could talk to someone who, in layman's terms, can explain the infrastructure issues?

Page 10:

Requirements 
can 
differ 
based 
on 
which 
City 
staff 
person 
one 
speaks 
to — 
that
 staff 
have varying 
levels 
of 
experience 
and 
knowledge;
 that 
the 
rules (or
 staff’s 
interpretation 
of 
them) 
seem
 to 
change 
frequently;
 that
 there 
is 
no
 consistency
 or
 clarity.

I'm not sure that's a problem unique to City Hall or government, that's not to say that the problem shouldn't be fixed, but you know the line in Office Space about having eight bosses...

Page 10:

Stated
 City 
priorities
 are 
not
 reflected
 in 
practices — for 
example,
 that 
the 
City
 says 
it 
wants 
infill 
and 
higher 
density 
development, 
but
 seems 
to 
make 
it
 difficult 
to 
approve 
this 
kind 
of 
development.

True. But that's not necessarily the City's fault. Look at the struggle to develop the Lafarge lands in the West End, and the fact it was made a struggle by both a neighbourhood group and a corporation that owns, what would be, a competing plaza a little further to the west.

Page 10:

Inability 
of 
the 
City
 to
 sufficiently
 reconcile 
a
 predominant
 ‘small 
town 
feel 
and
 outlook’ 
with 
its 
designation
 as
 an
 urban
 growth 
centre — 
that 
many
 members 
of 
the 
community 
in 
general
 and
 some 
City 
staff/elected
 officials
 have 
not 
accepted 
the 
level 
and 
type 
of 
growth 
proposed 
for 
Guelph.

Again, this is a problem shared amongst many and not just those at City Hall. A lot of people move to Guelph for that small town meets growing city vibe.

Page 11:

While 
recognizing 
that 
it 
is 
sometimes
 appropriate 
for
 the 
City 
to
 say 
‘no,’
 many
 external
 participants 
suggest
 that 
City 
staff
 typically
 act
 more
 as
 adversarial
 challengers
 than
 client 
partners. 
At 
the
 heart
 of
 this
 perception
 is
 an
 underlying
 sense 
that 
City
 Hall
 focuses 
more 
on
 being 
a
 regulator 
rather
 than
 identifying 
and
 facilitating
 solutions. 
A
 number 
of 
external
 participants 
believe 
that 
staff
 find
 it
 much
 easier 
to
 raise
 objections
 and
 say
 ‘no,’ 
than
 to
 work
 with
 a
 client 
to
 find
 a 
way
 to
 say 
‘yes.’ 
There 
is 
a 
perception
 that
 staff 
are 
not
 active 
participants
 in 
the 
search
 for
 mutually
 agreeable 
options.

This paragraph I find problematic because it implies that City Hall should be 'yes men' (so to speak). Rather, I think it's important that the gatekeepers to development in our city play a devil's advocate role: why is it important to build there? To make this building this size? and other questions. Part of the City's job is being a regulator, and not a rubber stamp for the desires of business, and if business can't stand a few questions about logistics, why should they expect City Hall to approve their proposals before getting decent answers?

Page 12:

Inviting 
external 
stakeholders 
to 
meaningfully 
participate 
in 
the creation/refinement 
of 
City
 policies
 and 
guidelines;

So now we hop-scotch from "why should we meet guidelines?" to "just let us write the guidelines that administer us ourselves!" What could go wrong with that scenario?

Page 12:

While
 some
 City
 staff 
share 
the 
desire 
for
 a
 partnering 
approach, 
for 
others
 it 
is
 code
 for 
City 
Hall 
capitulation 
on 
significant 
issues.
 There 
are 
concerns 
about: 
how
 staff
 will 
be 
perceived 
by 
various 
external
 parties
(i.e.
 that 
they 
are
 working 
too 
closely
 with 
developers 
and 
other 
proponents 
to 
help 
them 
achieve 
their 
desired
 ends);
 the
 extra 
work/burden 
placed 
on 
them
 to
 solve 
problems 
not 
of 
their
 own 
making;
 and
 of 
growing 
pressure 
to 
compromise 
interests, 
ideals 
and 
City 
aspirations.


Agreed. There's a lot of pressure on city staff from all stakeholders, and the manner in which this report was leaked will probably do a lot to relieve that situation...*

*sarcasm.

Page 12:

There
 is 
a 
perception 
among
 some
 external 
participants
 — 
particularly 
developers,
 their 
consultants,
 real 
estate 
officials 
and
 businesses 
generally
 — 
that
 certain 
City
 policies 
and 
staff 
are 
inappropriately 
directing 
items 
that 
should 
be 
more 
within 
the
 purview 
of 
the 
proponent. 
This 
includes
 such
 things 
as 
the 
type 
of 
housing
 or
 commercial
 product 
and
 architectural
 detail/design (from
 roof
 treatments, 
to
 window 
shape/size, 
to 
the 
size/shape/placement 
of 
signs, 
to 
materials 
used: 

brick,
 stucco,
etc.). 
Moreover,
there
 is
 a 
sense
 that 
City‐mandated 
approaches
 run 
counter
 to
 market 
realities 
(what
‘works 
and 
sells) 
and 
do
 not 
respect
 builder 
or 
developer
 expertise. 
Some 
believe
 that 
City 
Hall 
is 
engaged 
in 
unwarranted 
social 
engineering
 and 
unduly 
dictating
 housing 
or 
commercial 
product.

Fair enough. I don't think city staff should be playing This Olde House with say in colour pallets and window frames.

Page 13:

Though
 not
 necessarily
 perceived
 to 
be
 a
 widespread
 issue, 
both
 internal 
and
 external
 participants
 raised
 the
 issue
 of
 favouritism 
and 
preferential
 treatment
 being 
given 
to 
certain 
parties
 — 
in 
particular, 
significant 
Guelph‐based 
businesses
 and
 larger 
developers 
operating 
in
 the 
City. 
A 
number 
of 
participants
 referenced 
the
 case of
 a
 prominent
 business, 
which 
apparently 
proceeded 
with 
an 
expansion
 without
 first 
obtaining 
the 
required
 building 
permits
 — 
in 
full 
knowledge 
of 
the 
City
 — 
and
 was 
allowed 
to 
do 
so 
given 
their
 size 
and 
relative 
importance
 to
 the
 local
 economy.

It could be argued that this is a systemic problem anywhere that a few companies hold sway over the majority of jobs. This isn't a so-called "Guelph-problem."


Page 13:

Some
 developers 
and 
their 
consultants 
cited 
examples 
of 
long, 
drawn‐out
 discussions 
to 
reach 
agreement
 about
 such 
things 
as
 the 
number
 and 
placement
 of
 trees 
on 
a 
site
 - 
and
 then 
not 
actually
 executing 
the 
agreed 
upon 
approach 
(and 
the
 City 
not 
checking 
to 
ensure 
compliance).

While surely a debate about the degree of detail one needs to abide by in terms of type and number of tree may be warranted, I think we can all agree that if the City's going to demand that a site have 10 trees then they should send someone out to count them and make sure that there are 10 trees on the site once the projects is done.

Page 14:

There
 is
 a
 sense
 that 
the
 Department
 is
 too
 process 
rather
 than
 results 
focused.
 There 
is 
also 
a 
sense 
that 
the 
Department 
could 
be 
more
 proactive
 and 
aggressive: 
getting 
out 
and 
meeting 
with 
more 
existing 
and 
potential 
Guelph‐based 
businesses;
 more 
actively
 securing 
investment 
in 
the 
City; 
more
 enthusiastically
 pursuing
 prospect 
companies; 
better 
taking 
advantage 
of 
land
 prices
 and 
low
development
 charges
 relative 
to
 other 
locations 
closer 
to 
the 
GTA. Moreover, 
some 
feel 
that 
the 
Department 
sometimes 
‘drops 
the 
ball’
 when 
handling
 leads 
provided 
by 
others 
or 
in 
moving 
things 
forward 
within 
the 
City.

This is probably an internal determination as residents generally have no idea what projects haven't been pursued or have been started. Having said that though, does it seem like there's a shortage of construction in the city?

Page 15:

For
 others, 
the
 key 
issue
 is 
around
 the 
speed
 of 
City 
response
 on 
a
 specific 
issue
 or
 question
 that 
is 
highly 
time 
sensitive
 (this
 was
 of
 particular,
though
 not
 exclusive,
 concern 
of 
real 
estate 
officials).
 The
 City 
was 
described 
as 
lacking 
an 
appreciation 
of
 the 
urgency 
required
 when 
in
 the 
midst 
of 
brokering 
deals.
 Moreover,
there 
were
 also 
concerns 
about 
how 
long 
it
 takes 
to
 coordinate
 various 
departments 
and
 establish a 
joint City 
response 
to 
an
 economic
 opportunity,
 particularly 
given 
the
 narrow
 windows
 of
 time 
that 
are 
available.

Unfortunately, government doesn't typically have more than the one speed.

Page 17:

A 
significant 
number
 of 
staff
 — 
particularly 
those 
at 
the
 mid 
to 
lower 
levels
 — 
agree
 that
 there 
is 
a
 great 
reluctance
 to
 share 
opinions 
or 
espouse 
views 
that 
have 
not been 
specifically 
endorsed 
by 
more 
senior 
staff.
 Of 
interest,
 many 
staff
 and
 external
 stakeholders
 say 
the 
overall 
City 
organizational 
culture 
does 
not 
foster/promote
 autonomy,
 risk‐taking 
or 
innovation.


Again, show me a private corporation where the mid to lover levels staffers don't feel the same. It's the corporate culture across the board that fosters the idea that management knows best.

Page 21:

There 
are 
concerns 
that 
certain
 City
 services
 — 
for
 example, 
Economic
 Development
 and 
Tourism
 — 
do
 not 
have
 an
 adequate 
voice 
at 
the 
City’s 
executive
 team 
level.

That sounds like a legitimate criticism that warrants further scrutiny.

Page 22:

As
 duly 
elected
 officials
 with 
decision‐making
 authority,
 City
 Councillors 
were
 frequently 
identified
 — 
by 
virtually
 all 
parties 
consulted
 — 
as
 contributors
 to
 making 
Guelph 
‘a 
challenging 
place 
with 
which
 to 
do 
business.’


Again, it seems like someone here wants a rubber stamp, and before we forget, councillors are answerable to people too: their constituents.

Page 22:

Moreover,
 there 
is 
a 
sense
 among 
some 
that 
Guelph 
prides 
itself 
on 
being 
perceived
 as 
the
 ‘Granola
 capital 
of 
the 
world’ 
and 
an
 ‘unabashedly
 green 
community’ — 
and,
though
 not
 mutually
 exclusive,
 that 
this
 works 
against 
the 
impression
 of 
being
 business 
friendly.

As much as can see this point of view, I don't really see it's a reality anymore. While there is a very Green-friendly community here in the Royal City, I must sadly say that at this point they're really more of an "irritant" to those who want to "build, build, build!" As "unabashed" as the "green community" may be, they have no qualms about the fact that they don't have an iota of real power when it comes to political decisions in this town.

Page 23:

Some
 believe
 that
 this
 willingness 
to
 ‘indulge’ 
activism 
gives 
rise
 and
 implicit
 license to
 some 
of 
the 
more
 egregious
 protester 
actions 
including
 the
 destruction 
of 
equipment, 
defaced
 buildings 
and 
vandalized 
construction 
sites.

There 
is
 a 
belief
 — 
particularly 
among
 business 
and 
development 
interests, 
and
 their 
respective 
consultants, 
but 
including
 some
 staff
 — 
that 
the 
City
 gives disproportionate 
attention 
and 
credence 
to 
the 
perspectives 
of 
a
 few 
and/or 
special
 interests 
of 
various 
kinds. 

Again, another perception that's about a decade past its expiry date. Everyone has a long memory about the Wal-Mart protests while forgetting that the petition against the mega-store was some 10,000 signatures long and that Guelph was hardly alone in the anti-Wal-Mart crusade. Having said that, there have been protests since, but with increasingly diminishing returns, and the last time any fuss was made about local development was the Hanlon Creek Business Park protest back in 2009. You know what happened then? The SLAAP suit launched by the City and legal charges from the G20 protests pretty much shutdown anyone that might have wanted to speak out. Unless we're talking about delegates at city council, most of whom are ignored if the political winds are strong enough, the City doesn't really "indulge" activism anymore.

You can read the full report for yourself here.