City played a role in souring DBIA relations

The two Business Improvement Areas (BIA) in Peterborough – the Village BIA in East City and the Downtown BIA (DBIA) – are part of 285 BIAs representing some 60,000 businesses in Ontario. Self-funded and volunteer-run, they undertake improvements and promote economic development within their defined areas. In recent years, the DBIA has distinguished itself with an aggressive and successful agenda of downtown events that are vital in a community with high unemployment and competitive suburban shopping opportunities.

The DBIA has also expressed concerns over city decisions that it views as harmful to its membership. These include the ad hoc city approval of individual suburban developments that it sees as inconsistent with the city’s own downtownprotective land use regulations, including the Hakim Optical, Mastermind Toys and Giant Tiger buildings on Lansdowne West. The DBIA came up on the short end of the stick on all these and, in the process, established itself as something of a thorn in the city’s side.

Recently, the relationship between the city and the DBIA has worsened. For the past few years, Mayor Daryl Bennett has been the city’s representative on the DBIA board. Angered at the decision of the board to appeal the city’s approval of a suburban casino to the Ontario Municipal Board, (OMB) he called on city council to set new restrictive limits on BIAs last fall and then resigned from the DBIA board. This February, the DBIA withdrew its appeal of the city’s casino decision, brokering a deal in which it gained $3 million from the city and $500,000 in sponsorship from the casino over 20 years ... an act that angered other councillors, one of whom called it extortion.

Earlier this month, the city acted on the mayor’s proposal and passed a bylaw prohibiting the BIAs from making decisions contrary to council-approved policy; restricting their ability to appeal city decisions to the OMB; and requiring new limits on their spending. Remarkably, the city did not formally consult with the DBIA on these changes; nor did city council agree to remedy that failing. The city-DBIA relationship is now badly soured. While the DBIA has been cast as the bad guy, the city has to assume some responsibility for the deteriorating relationship. Here’s why.

First, the city’s own official plan encourages entertainment facilities such as casinos to locate downtown. You can’t blame the DBIA for using the city’s own policies to support its pro-downtown case; and you can’t give credibility to a city proposal for a suburban casino that is contrary to its own dusty policies. I see the indefensibility of the city’s own case before the OMB as a key reason it chose to settle with the DBIA.

Second, immediately following the DBIA appeal of the casino to the OMB, the city shut down the Downtown Action Committee, preventing the DBIA, city staff and others from collective discussions on all downtown issues.

Third, the city-DBIA casino settlement contains a clause requiring mutual consultation. It was violated by the city with its passage of the restrictive BIA bylaw without any formal consultation with the DBIA – an action that prevented the parties from working towards a compromise solution.

Fourth, the city’s current representative on the DBIA board, downtown Coun. Diane Therrien, did not consult with her board on the city’s proposed BIA bylaw. She also could not convince nine of her fellow councillors to allow consultation on the bylaw.

When the DBIA executive director was hired in 2013 he said that one of his goals was to improve communications with the city. That’s a two-way door; the city should open it.