Tuesday, February 5, 2008

What I Know and do not Know about the After Hours Debate


Some random thoughts about last nights latest installment in the Afterhours debate. What has become an ongoing saga with no end in site.

I know the mayor was probably right about the need for a council report to withstand an OMB challenge. As he put it, any articling law student should know that

I do not know why he or the city solicitor did not make this clear three weeks ago. I am only registering to speak to the merits or disadvantages of this issue and a bylaw, not to judge its ability to withstand court challenges. Had this been made clear to councillors three weeks ago, we would have saved a lot of everyones time

I do know that the main argument of Diane Sibley about not having bylaw enforcement officers on staff after 3am is an insult to logic and intelligence of everyone. If Windsor cannot enforce a bylaw that sees these establishments closed after 3am, how can it enforce bylaws such as noise when they are allowed to remain open.

I do not know why another report will be issued that does not allow input from the DWBIA who has access to numerous experts and information on the subject such as Peter Belmio, Responsible Hospitality Institute and others.

I do know that the Police chief opposes this bylaw for the stated reason of its similarity in effect to the prostitution debate.

I do not know why the Police chief cannot understand the simple reasoning behind moving this problem out of pelissier and downtown. That this area is unique in Windsor because 1 billion dollars (Yes a billion) has been invested into downtown with Casino, convention center, arena, transit, college campus, Streetscape and decoration, districting, DWBIA facade grant incentives etc... and that investment deserves to be protected.

I do know that when the Peter Belmio Report was debated and accepted that there was no objection from the police chief.

I do not know why some councillors take their positions. Although I fully understand the points of view of Councillors Dilkins, Gignac and Hatfield in wanting to wait for the report. I cannot understand many of the comments of councillors Marra and especially councillor Lewenza who was quoted as saying "sometimes the best thing we can do is to do nothing at all"

I do know how this will play out. The DWBIA will spend thousands on bringing experts to restate its case. If council decides to not solve this problem in a way that sees the dangerous situation that exists on Pelissier and Wyandotte then video will be released that shows the public the situation as it exists on Saturday at 3am.

I do not know why its taken five years for administration to recommend alternative solutions and whether they will meaningfully address the desires of the Responsible Hospitality Institute or the Belmio recommendations

I do know that after all the above takes place and years go by that this will then become an election issue.

I do not know why a councillor would want to run supporting after hours bars against the will of the vast majority of residents and the vast majority of businesses. I do not know why they are not worried about the voters

I do know that my picture above shows the pottersville dream that doing nothing will see and that no matter how many years it takes to implement the 2003 Belmio recommendations, it's a wonderful life downtown.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Councillor Lewenza doesn't really say much most of the time anyway, if you can understand what he says in the first place. I doubt he can string along a proper sentence. I think he just likes to hear himself speak and thinks he if chock full of wisdom. Of course we know that isn't true.

What was wrong with shutting down bars at 3:00AM and then having to get a variance if a nightclub wanted to stay open longer for a specific venue? Could the variance be free of charge and fast tracked so as not to hold up the promotion? Why are bars suddenly up in arms?

James Coulter said...

I threw this out there on Alan Halberstadt's blog and I'll post it here for us to talk about as well.

Instead of a mandatory closing time the City enacts a by-law that stops bars/clubs from admitting new patrons after midnight. Patrons would trickle out as they finished their evenings and wouldn't be able to amass at one particular venue. Bars would be able to close when they felt their crowd was done for the night.

Mark Boscariol said...

The variance was set up to be exactly like a noise bylaw exemption which is exactly how you have stated it.

James' proposal could work as well. The nightclubs have not as of yet and will not accept that as a compromise.

Wouldn't even have to be midnight, could be after 2am.