Tree-huggers should back process
Interesting property rights battle in St. Catharines.
It pits Brock University against the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
At issue is whether Brock can develop its property off Lockhart Drive that is under the NEC’s jurisdiction.
It’s a fight the university thought it had won more than 25 years ago.
That’s when a hearing officer rejected a proposed NEC amendment to redesignate the land in question from escarpment urban to escarpment natural, a change that would have been the death knell for future development.
The NEC, however, never paid much heed to the hearing officer’s recommendation. Over the years, updated mapping by the commission has considerably reduced the amount of Brock’s escarpment-urban property.
In a be-careful-what-you-wishfor move, Brock recently sought land-designation clarification from the commission. The existing mapping is at odds with what the hearing officer determined, lo those many years ago. In light of this apparent disagreement, what exactly is the boundary between escarpment urban and escarpment natural as it relates to Brock’s property?
The answer is that the NEC, presumably believing it is acting in the public good, has asked the province to scrap the escarpment urban designation for all the land, except for the small parcel on which sits an existing Brock building. The request was made without seeking input from any stakeholders, including the university, the city and Niagara Region.
Brock is rightly furious with this unilateral action, and has sought the city and the Region’s support in getting the province to put NEC’s request on hold until a more inclusive process takes place.
No matter your politics, Brock’s request for support is a no-brainer.
If the shoe was on the other foot — the NEC, without public input, seeking to expand the escarpment urban area — tree huggers would be screaming bloody murder.
So, city council agreed to Brock’s request. Presuming the province insists on a more public process, the eco-battle can begin in earnest.
Speaking of shoes on the other foot, this property rights issue reminded me somewhat of another one from several years ago involving Brock.
We’re talking 2008 when the university coveted the old Canada Hair Cloth building for its school of fine and performing arts. Problem was, the building ’s owner, Jim Macfarlane, didn’t want to sell at the price Brock was offering.
When it become clear the stalemate couldn’t be broken in timely fashion, the city, acting more or less as Brock’s proxy, announced its intention to expropriate the Hair Cloth property.
In essence, the city said it was taking such action in the public good. More specifically, the expropriation was a key to downtown revitalization.
Macfarlane exercised his right to have a “hearing of necessity” for the expropriation.
This placed the city and, by extension, Brock in a weird position. Everyone knew what the future plan was. Brock wanted to move its arts school to a renovated Hair Cloth building, a project that would coincide with the building of an adjoining performing arts centre by the city
But the city had yet to officially approve the building of the arts centre — it was waiting for a consultant’s report to rubber-stamp its intentions — and, of course, Brock really couldn’t say anything because it didn’t own the Hair Cloth building.
Thus, the city could only speak in vague generalities at the hearing about its revitalization intentions. The hearing officer ruled against the city, concluding there was no pressing need for expropriation. But it didn’t matter. His ruling wasn’t binding.
The city moved ahead with the expropriation at a market valueassessed price. Once the process was completed, it flipped the property over to Brock for a buck.
The rest is downtown revitalization history.
A public good was arguably achieved, but only after an open and transparent, albeit ultimately feeble, process was followed.
Whether a public good is at stake in the Brock property rights/escarpment preservation wrangle may be in the eye of the beholder.
But its determination should be the subject of a process that is neither feeble nor closed.