Traffic barriers at Falls working: NPC
Less room for cars means more walking space for pedestrians
Paint them with Canadian flag emblems, possibly?
That’s one Niagara Falls Review reader’s suggestion for improving the look of the 600 metres of white traffic barriers that separate pedestrians and vehicles on the road near Table Rock House at the brink of the falls.
The dividers are there to protect the tourists, who during peak times can number a couple of thousand on that stretch of sidewalk.
But they also block off an entire northbound traffic lane, turning the Niagara Parkway into two often slow-moving lanes at that point.
The risk to tourists was reinforced in April when a driver intentionally hunted pedestrians on a north Toronto street, driving
to discuss his draft report and offer responses that are included in his final report. Regional council did not do that, but rather some feedback was given by the Region’s external lawyer.
Dube’s report said that lawyer, Jennifer Teskey of the firm Norton Rose Fulbright Canada of Toronto, provided responses that was contradicted by evidence and in doing so attempted “to influence our investigative process, challenge our well-established statutory authority and dictate the content of my report.”
St. Catharines Coun. Kelly Edgar asked D’Angelo Thursday why council did not meet to discuss the Ombudsman report and recommendations before its public release.
“I don’t have an answer for that,” said D’Angelo, who said the Region’s external legal council offered to take in any council responses to the report.
Later in the meeting, D’Angelo said that he and regional staff provided “collated feedback” from staff to Teskey, who later provided a response to the Ombudsman.
St. Catharines Mayor Walter Sendzik said the external lawyer had no business attempting to change the content of Dube’s report.
“For me, that is the biggest red flag,” he said. “I am fine with everything else. We made mistakes on Dec. 7. We can’t take that back but we can say we are sorry. I don’t want to fixate on Dec. 7. I want to talk about the interference. Someone was trying to influence the report.”
Sendzik asked who was directing Teskey, and regional director of legal court services Donna Gibbs, who said she and D’Angelo were the primary contacts with Teskey. However, she said further discussion about staff direction given to Teskey would be moved behind closed doors.
Sendzik asked how Teskey’s firm was chosen, to which D’Angelo replied the firm was recommended by “colleagues” who he did not identify.
When Sendzik said Teskey did not have the appropriate qualifications to represent the Region during and Ombudsman investigation, that prompted D’Angelo and Gibbs to say discussion of an “identifiable individual” must be behind closed doors.
Council did hold a closed-door meeting to discuss the external lawyer, including an explanation from Teskey as to why she adopted what Dube called “an adversarial approach” in her response to his recommendations.
Councillors deferred a vote on the recommendations until after the closed session.