A creative idea has been presented to the Township: to utilize the eastern portion of our Museum for Genview’s sales office. (Genview is the developer for the subdivision east of the Museum.) The upside potential is sensitive renovation of parts of our Museum. Less difficult to truly understand is the benefit of this first step for integrating a new subdivision into the current fabric of our community.
I am well aware that there was a lot of disappointment about this specific development in terms of its “encroachment” on the landscape around the Museum. But, “it is what it is.” And, I think it will be more productive over the long run to not build a virtual wall between the Museum and the subdivision.
Just think: a new resident’s first exposure to King City would be the Museum!
I am also well aware that there is concern that the Museum will be damaged or that the normal events and activity at the Museum will be restricted due to the temporary sales office. Without question, these are possibilities. What we need to do is to negotiate the right arrangement to ensure that they do not become the reality.
To summarize status: at April 4 Council Genview presented the concept as to how they would propose to improve the Museum by renovating the additions made previously by the board of education; in turn we would grant permission to establish a sales office in the east end of the Museum. Council accepted the deputation and referred it to Staff. A full report with details will be tabled at Council at a later date; at that time Public will be able to comment. To meet their business needs, a decision will need to be made by June 2011.
To see the concept see pages 3-6 here. To give a flavour for how they are thinking here is one point. To achieve the functionality required for a sales office a door would be added east of the current Museum door; when the sales office is no longer required the new door will be eliminated. There are many important logistics to assess: e.g. parking, special Museum events.
Hi Debbie
First, I very much appreciate your refreshing and thoughtful ideas concerning keeping us informed.
With regard to the matter at hand, the utilization of the museum for a sales office, I’m not convinced this is a good idea at all. There will be a lot of developer promotion with the objective of selling the houses. The public will see that our museum is in fact the sales office. What are we telling visitors to King when we have a developer’s sales office in our special, non-profit little museum dedicated to preserving our heritage and our memories. It may not be the same as selling pornographic magazines in the cathedral but it is getting somewhat towards that direction.
For me the only justification would be a financial one. We desperately need money. We are broke. What would the rental or honorarium or whatever do for the museum and the Township? In crass terms, how much would we make? How long would the developer have a sales office in the museum?
For many years a number of us have been fighting development of our community. We see strangers, transients, profiting from their work without regard for our image — the small town, a neighbourly place where many of our families have lived for decades, nurturing this special spot in the middle of the Oak Ridges Moraine. With the sales office in the museum, we will have to re-examine our image.
Hans
Hello Hans,
I am not surprized at all that you are not convinced about the wisdom of the idea. I too am not convinced that we should execute. I am convinced that there is enough upside potential that it is well worth the effort of finding out i) what the actual execution would be and ii) what benefits will accrue to the Township, and more specifically to the Museum. It will be critical to have the right people (i.e. Heritage, Museum) involved in fleshing it all out. As you say we are broke and unable to execute improvements and enhancements at the Museum; we need to look at different ways for getting things done. It is my intent that the potential benefits will be quite clear and the “cost” for getting them will be quite clear; then, a decision can be made.
Thank you for getting engaged in this important discussion. Debbie
Many people struggle with changes of any kind, or compromises, or the simple realities of life. And others feel that all developers are devils, that all businesses are greedy, that all politicians are corrupt. It’s hard to make any headway in that kind of environment. So many of our best heritage buildings sit abandoned and forlorn and there is no money and little vision to ensure their survival. And when they’re gone, they’re gone. This proposal may turn out badly, but on the other had, we may end up with a lovely renewed building and gateway to our special little town if it turns out well – and much of that success will depend on the committees and the politicians and the businesses and the residents working together (for a change)….
I think there are a couple of points that should be made:
i) the museum and its three buildings all require some degree of structural work to ensure their longevity. In contrast the work proposed by Genview is largely facade work and for the benefit of the developer – not the township or museum (in my view).
ii) the duration of use by Genview (estimated between 1 1/2 and 2 years is a significant time and very likely will have impact on the museum programs; many of which have enjoyed increased participation over the last couple of years due laregly to the efforts of Museum Curator, Kathleen Fry.
iii) Genview, as a result of the motion made at the recent Council meeting is likely under the distinct impression that they have the “go-ahead”; so I’m unsure as to whether there is any meaningful discussion to be had over the principle of use (as per Hans Martin’s comments) of a public facility in this manner.
iv) Genview has indicated that they wish to have their sales office in place before the end of this spring; and as usual with King Township there is little time for the necessary discsussion to take place.
v) There are no generic policies, practices or criteria defined by King Township for use of facilities in this manner. It is, based on this example, theoretically possible for King Township’s Council to approve the use of a Community Hall for one (or another) of the political parties for the provincial election.
For these reasons I believe that it’s inapprorpaite at this time to approve the usage outlined.
Many thanks
Jeff L.
Hi Debbie,
Here’s my perspective. (Sorry for the wordy post).
I think the key word that you use in your blog post is “opportunity”. One of the key points that I advocated during the recent election campaign was the need to engage in public/private partnerships. I wrote about this using Seneca College as an example on my blog. Whether we like it or not King is financially strapped and in order for this council to navigate its way through this growth phase we need to not only be open to different opportunities but to also to know when to seize upon them when they present themselves.
NOTHING has been approved or finalized as yet. All that we have done is listened to a delegation made before council, and agreed to a concept in principle that is now subject to question and scrutiny by our staff, the public and council. We need to see more details.
So what is that concept? In basic terms, it is to entertain the possibility of having the museum building repaired, improved, renovated, and expanded in size along with the parking lot expanded and paved, and at no cost to the Township. In return, the Township would agree (in the form of a legal agreement) to permit the home builder to use a part of the Museum building as a sales office for a limited time i.e. 1 to 2 years max. What exactly will this sales office look like? We don’t entirely know yet, but I will be looking for a high standard that is sensitive to our museum lands.
One of the things I have heard people talk about while I was a member of our Heritage Committee is in regard to the poor character of the additions that were made to the old Kinghorn school many years ago. Two flat roofed, very utilitarian additions were made by the School board for the sole purpose of providing classroom space for students. It would seem, that little thought was put into how this might compromise the original old heritage structure. Yet there its sits today, and in some disrepair. And with the sad state of our financial affairs I think it is safe to say that the renovation and repair of that building sits well down on the list of Township priorities.
But now, opportunity has knocked on the King Museum door. An opportunity that could “right” so many of the “wrongs” that were done decades ago to that building. An opportunity to renovate and increase programming space. An opportunity to enhance the architectural features of the building to something that is more in keeping, and more sympathetic to the old Kinghorn School – and at no cost to King. The only condition? That we permit the people who would repair it, to use it for a short period of time. How can we as a council not consider this opportunity?
As a result of some of the knee jerk, negative responses we have heard, the easy thing to do would be to shy away and run from this opportunity and save our selves from the probing lens of the microscope, and in the process, let opportunity pass us by. Yet that is not what my instincts are telling me to do. Quite the contrary. In fact I believe we would be idiots to not to at least listen to what these people are offering.
We were elected to represent our constituents, I believe, based on the ability that we demonstrate to think through the morass of issues that we encounter on a day to day basis, and to use our best judgment to mete out the best possible outcome for the community that we love. I believe that it is not so much how we vote on any specific issue that convinces people to support us as councillors, but rather that we demonstrate that we care, that we are open minded, available, and approachable, and that we think , to the best of our ability about what is best for our Township. Through that we often find ourselves caught between a rock and a hard place, and it is at those times when we have to listen to our gut i.e. what decision feels right? what decision feels not quite as bad as the other. Some things we may get wrong, but it won’t be without having thought things through conscientiously.
In my view, this is but one step in what has so far been a very encouraging process. And I would ask that everyone please remain opened minded and focused on the good that can come out of this. If what is presented is ultimately deemed bad for King, then we as a council will make the appropriate decision when the time comes. But starting out by focusing on the negative, in my opinion, is not the kind of message that I want to be sending out. We need to be more open minded and creative than that.
One of the other challenges we are facing are the changes the Township is undergoing, specifically in regard to its boards of management and committees. The Township is undergoing change on many levels. You have a mayor and a number of new council members that ran on the promise of change, and also a deputy mayor who advocated the same. Our sustainability initiative, for which we received a federal grant, is the first step in redefining the structure and mandate of our committees and we have very nearly filled the volunteer positions of the Sustainability Task Force. It is through this task force that the various committees will realign and be reinvigorated with a fresh mandate that focuses on the long term well being of the Township by avoiding the silo effect that we have operated under for so long, and instead harmonizing the environmental, economic, and socio cultural (i.e. heritage) issues we are faced with – and having them operate in concert with one another. Its strikes me as being an approach that is…elegantly appropriate for our times.
Do I know precisely what these committees will look like yet? No. I would say none of us really do. But one positive change that the heritage committee has advocated for years is the addition of a heritage planner. This mayor and this council, within months of inauguration are listening. And we are acting. On the whole, its a process that we are working through that may take months, and it is being undertaken by a council who strongly believes that volunteerism is the life blood of King Township. We have received some criticism for this. Unfounded rumours that we are trying to do away with our volunteer boards. This could not be further from the truth. We are assessing where we’ve been as a Township, where we are today, and where we need to go so that King will always exist, and not be carved into pieces and dished off to our neigbouring municipalities.
This is about survival, I think.
Cleve