Columnists
What is to be done?
What is to be done with the vacant corner store? That question matters to a lot of people, as the building lies at a key location for the redevelopment of a booming Wellington.
After a two-year wait, the issue is now on the front burner. The County’s Director of Community Development has finally sent his report to council, which it “received” at its July 27 committee of the whole meeting. The report pointedly disclaims, however, that it “does not constitute a recommendation or full assessment of feasiblity.”
A decison about the future of the store was precipitated by the need to upgrade the infrastructure that accommodates Lane Creek. Lane Creek winds through town—sometimes subterraneously, including under the store—before emptying into Lake Ontario immediately to the west of the Drake Devonshire Hotel.
County staff originally planned to relocate the creek south and underneath Wharf Street to avoid the store (and any potential liability to the store owners), but then the opportunity to purchase the store came up. By buying the building, the County opened up a new and cheaper way to deal with the creek. It could demolish the store and have the Creek flow, open, right through the property, the rest of which would be used for some sort of passive public purpose such as a parkette or parking lot.
However, many residents, taking their lead from local artist Pamela Carter, became alarmed at the prospect of losing a salvage able heritage building. Public meetings were held, as a consequence of which council commissioned the report. The report puts two new options on the table: selling the property and leaving the building standing (“Option 1”), and selling the property for development after demolishing the building (“Option 2”). (The existing proposal to demolish the buidling and rehabilitate the land under continued County ownership is referred to in the report as “Option 3.”). The big takeaway for Option 1 and 2 fans is the simple fact of their inclusion as credible alternatives to Option 3.
Both new options involve a different rerouting of Lane Creek than was originally contemplated, or in Option 3. The creek would instead flow to the west side of the store before crossing Main Street.
While Options 1 and 2 entail an initial outlay that is substantially more than in Option 3, they allow the opportunity for the County to recoup some of its costs. Based on an opinion from the County’s realtor, the market value of the site under Option 1 is $550,000, and under Option 2, $200,000. On a net basis, therefore, the cost of Option 1 drops to $134,020, while the cost of Option 2 is $357,520. The cost of Option 3, which has no resale element, is $408,250. Champions of Option 1 point out that this caclulation makes it the cheapest option, with the additional prospect of future tax revenue (although the latter point could also be made about Option 2).
Each of the three options has something going for it. Option 3 puts an end to uncertainty and brings Lane Creek out into the open where it can do no more real or apprehended damage. Option 2 allows for new building and greater densification of the very core of Wellington, which is consistent with the Wellington Secondary Plan. Option 1 preserves the building itself and meets a heritage preservation objective.
The only difficulty I have with Options 1 and 2 is that until you see the whites of a purchaser’s eyes, you are speculating what the property will sell for, and what sort of building you’ll end up with. You could sell to a builder who has a great heritage restoration plan, but discovers the building isn’t in the great shape it was supposed to be in, and tears it down with a shrug saying “sorry, but I’ve got to make a profit.” A new building could promise a heritage-sympathetic set of architectural features that might somehow get dropped along the way.
So what is to be done? More public consultation is fine, although I suspect opinion won’t have changed over the past two years. But we are doing very little to advance the cause of Option 1 or Option 2 unless we are able to deal with real facts. I return to the disclaimer in the report: there is no recommendation made or feasiblity assessment offered. In order to properly to evaluate the options, council needs to know what someone is prepared to pay for the property, and what it would get for its money. I suggest the County invite proposals for the purchase of the property under either of these two options. Once the responses are in, all three options can be properly weighed and a step forward can be taken.
Comments (0)