Sunday, May 30, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Residents say: NO beach volleyball
Interview and photo by Casey Lessard
What are your main issues with volleyball on the beach at Grand Bend?
This is not a volleyball issue. I am a strong proponent of volleyball and other sports. My career was as a physical educator and coach. I love volleyball and sports and the benefits of sports. This issue is about commercializing our beach, a beach that has been designated for public use. It’s my feeling and our feeling – I represent a fairly large segment of the population right now – that no commercial activity should take over any portion of any of our beaches.
Beach volleyball is big business. If you have John Morrison of Not So Pro owing the City of Toronto $328,000 (including, according to the Globe and Mail, $113,000 for three months rent), you have to know this is big business. Even if it weren’t a huge potential for business, it’s still a for-profit activity on our beach. More...
Monday, May 17, 2010
Open letter to residents
Open letter to residents
Beach volleyball
Letter to Editor-Lakeshore Advnce
It was proud moment for me last week to be asked to participate with two other members of our community, in a bid to persuade our Council to alter its stance on the use of our Grand Bend beach. As many of you know, an independent entity calling itself PVB Enterprises struck a deal with Council to use a section of our beach as a venue for its summer volleyball schools and tournaments with an open-ended time frame from May – mid September, for the next 10 summers.
This deal was struck (to a large extent in secrecy behind closed doors) with no concerted effort on the part of council or PVB to get a timely "feel for public opinion."
In an effort to pinpoint and get "a fix" on their actions, Council was asked among other points, to address 3 specific items in the agreement.
How they determined that "this was in the public interest?"
What the clause, "PVB is to refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of the beach" means in practice?
That "PVB will hold and pay for a $2 million liability insurance policy to be in place at the signing of the contract."
The response of councillors? Mute silence. We were courteously thanked for our input, dismissed and the "formal" council meeting began oblivious to our concerns and questions.
No wonder there is community unrest, and suspicion of Council's motives. Did Council conduct a poll, was there a survey done that allowed them to conclude their agreement was in the public interest?
Based on the crowd of concerned citizens jamming the fire hall in Thedford at this council meeting, I think it's safe to say PVB has already interfered with our enjoyment of the beach. And finally, what formula was used to determine that $2 million of liability insurance was sufficient, or too much?
Why not $5 or for that matter $10 million…..after all we are talking about thousands of people on our beach throughout the prime summer months….and not just this year, but for the next 10 summers?
Citizens of the Greater Grand Bend area don't let a group of politicians and self serving entities decide the fate of OUR beach, OUR natural gem. Make your views known to Council.
Robert Green
Robert Green & Associates
Beach volleyball
Letter to Editor-Lakeshore Advnce
It was proud moment for me last week to be asked to participate with two other members of our community, in a bid to persuade our Council to alter its stance on the use of our Grand Bend beach. As many of you know, an independent entity calling itself PVB Enterprises struck a deal with Council to use a section of our beach as a venue for its summer volleyball schools and tournaments with an open-ended time frame from May – mid September, for the next 10 summers.
This deal was struck (to a large extent in secrecy behind closed doors) with no concerted effort on the part of council or PVB to get a timely "feel for public opinion."
In an effort to pinpoint and get "a fix" on their actions, Council was asked among other points, to address 3 specific items in the agreement.
How they determined that "this was in the public interest?"
What the clause, "PVB is to refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of the beach" means in practice?
That "PVB will hold and pay for a $2 million liability insurance policy to be in place at the signing of the contract."
The response of councillors? Mute silence. We were courteously thanked for our input, dismissed and the "formal" council meeting began oblivious to our concerns and questions.
No wonder there is community unrest, and suspicion of Council's motives. Did Council conduct a poll, was there a survey done that allowed them to conclude their agreement was in the public interest?
Based on the crowd of concerned citizens jamming the fire hall in Thedford at this council meeting, I think it's safe to say PVB has already interfered with our enjoyment of the beach. And finally, what formula was used to determine that $2 million of liability insurance was sufficient, or too much?
Why not $5 or for that matter $10 million…..after all we are talking about thousands of people on our beach throughout the prime summer months….and not just this year, but for the next 10 summers?
Citizens of the Greater Grand Bend area don't let a group of politicians and self serving entities decide the fate of OUR beach, OUR natural gem. Make your views known to Council.
Robert Green
Robert Green & Associates
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Communication Key
Communication key
Municipal council
BY LYNDA HILLMAN-RAPLEY - Lakeshore Advance
Posted 2 months ago
The problem with communication ... is the illusion that it has been accomplished ~George Bernard Shaw:
When it comes to transparency and communication- taxpayers want an open and clear view as to how their money is being spent, how their municipality is being run. We vote people in hoping their motivation is to do what's best for everyone. When we think that is not happening and there are too many unanswered questions-reaction is in high gear.
This is an election year and we are going to see a whole lot of grandstanding. At the end of the day, whatever motivates candidates and incumbents should include the desire to encourage and foster stakeholder participation and openness in the decision making process.
But as in any government, that process may take time and leg work. Sometimes the answers are not instantly available. It makes little sense to give part answers---it makes little sense to call public meeting when there is no current information. That does not mean there is no transparency. Transparency means the municipal decision making process is open and clear to the public. When they have the answers--they should reveal.
That is expected and in most cases demanded by tax payers. Accountability, transparency and openness are standards of good government that enhance public trust. That is not new. If you live in Ontario you should be content that your council conducts its business in a public, accountable and transparent manner through the Municipal Act, 2001, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the Provincial Offences Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act the Health Information Protection Act and the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act.
If you are not content that is happening---you have until Sept. 10 to file.
Municipal council
BY LYNDA HILLMAN-RAPLEY - Lakeshore Advance
Posted 2 months ago
The problem with communication ... is the illusion that it has been accomplished ~George Bernard Shaw:
When it comes to transparency and communication- taxpayers want an open and clear view as to how their money is being spent, how their municipality is being run. We vote people in hoping their motivation is to do what's best for everyone. When we think that is not happening and there are too many unanswered questions-reaction is in high gear.
This is an election year and we are going to see a whole lot of grandstanding. At the end of the day, whatever motivates candidates and incumbents should include the desire to encourage and foster stakeholder participation and openness in the decision making process.
But as in any government, that process may take time and leg work. Sometimes the answers are not instantly available. It makes little sense to give part answers---it makes little sense to call public meeting when there is no current information. That does not mean there is no transparency. Transparency means the municipal decision making process is open and clear to the public. When they have the answers--they should reveal.
That is expected and in most cases demanded by tax payers. Accountability, transparency and openness are standards of good government that enhance public trust. That is not new. If you live in Ontario you should be content that your council conducts its business in a public, accountable and transparent manner through the Municipal Act, 2001, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the Provincial Offences Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act the Health Information Protection Act and the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act.
If you are not content that is happening---you have until Sept. 10 to file.
PVB requires Sand not Beach
PVB Enterprises require Sand not Beach
Lettter to the editor- Lakeshore Advance
Dear Sir,
As a seasonal resident in Grand Bend, I am greatly disturbed to learn of the proposed permantent allocation of portions of North Beach to PVB Enterprises.
PVB's reported goals, to promote health and fitness, are admirable; but the cost - elimination of beach area for non-structured activities is too great.
The loss of areas of North Beach will negatively impact all beach goers who come to Grand Bend to enjoy impromptu activities such as: baseball catch, football catch, frisbee, soccer, kite-flying, digging in the sand or playing tag.
At the Bejing Olympics, 17,000 tons of sand were moved into Chaoyang Park Stadium for the Beach volleyball competition.
Any flat area in town, when covered with sand, would suit the requirements of Beach Volleyball.
PVB require SAND for their sport not BEACH.
Brian Bell
Lettter to the editor- Lakeshore Advance
Dear Sir,
As a seasonal resident in Grand Bend, I am greatly disturbed to learn of the proposed permantent allocation of portions of North Beach to PVB Enterprises.
PVB's reported goals, to promote health and fitness, are admirable; but the cost - elimination of beach area for non-structured activities is too great.
The loss of areas of North Beach will negatively impact all beach goers who come to Grand Bend to enjoy impromptu activities such as: baseball catch, football catch, frisbee, soccer, kite-flying, digging in the sand or playing tag.
At the Bejing Olympics, 17,000 tons of sand were moved into Chaoyang Park Stadium for the Beach volleyball competition.
Any flat area in town, when covered with sand, would suit the requirements of Beach Volleyball.
PVB require SAND for their sport not BEACH.
Brian Bell
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Dear Grand Bend beach lovers
Beach volleyball
Letter to the Editor -Lakeshore AdvanceAs a long-time resident of Grand Bend, having lived and had a business here for over 40 years, I have seen a lot of decisions that the Council has made for the "betterment" of the town. The recent decision to allow a businessman from Markham to set up a private business on the beach is unacceptable. Although a volleyball summer camp for our kids is a good idea, by allowing a private business to be set up for 5 months from 8 am to 9 pm 7 days a week from the condos north will severely limit the amount of beach available for public access. The beach has always been and should continue to be accessible by all for the public's gain, not private gain.
Grand Bend is known for its beach. My parents came to the "Bend" for the beach, as I have, my children, and now my grandchildren do. If we don't protect our most valuable asset to remain for the public's use, we are risking selling off what makes Grand Bend, Grand Bend. The beach should be for the people - today's and tomorrow's generations to continue to come and enjoy.
This is our beach for all to enjoy. Not for private profit!
Please if you care for OUR beach, please come to the meeting at the Grand Bend school
May 1st at 9:00 am and lets make our voice heard.
Sincerely,
Paula Taylor
a very concerned resident, business owner and beach lover
Monday, May 3, 2010
Councilor apologizes
Councilor apologizes for lack of communication
BY LYNDA HILLMAN-RAPLEY-Lakeshore Advance
I'm writing today to acknowledge and apologize for the lack of communication about the licensing of the Pro Volleyball (PVB) program on Grand Bend's North Beach. During a delegation to Lambton Shores' council on April 19th, I listened with interest to Ed Fluter's concerns about the lack of communication from the municipality and his belief that the $1500 annual rental fee is far too low. I now also understand that area residents are concerned about potential parking congestion, excessive noise and impediments to the comfortable, spontaneous use of the North Beach for non-structured, family-based activities.
My goal is to do the right thing for residents, businesses and guests in our community. This is a tall order that can only be accomplished through collaboration. I therefore invite all interested parties to attend a PVB-hosted information meeting at the Grand Bend school at 9:00 a.m. on May 1,st. to learn more about PVB's vision for volleyball on the North Beach.
Following the information meeting and further pubic input, I'll encourage council to take another look at both PVB's business plan and the contents of the license with Lambton Shores. With thanks to Ed Fluter's delegation, I feel better informed about resident's concerns and will work to incorporate them into the resulting solution. You can Email your comments to johndehondt@hay.net.
John Dehondt
Ward 1 Councillor
Lambton Shores
BY LYNDA HILLMAN-RAPLEY-Lakeshore Advance
I'm writing today to acknowledge and apologize for the lack of communication about the licensing of the Pro Volleyball (PVB) program on Grand Bend's North Beach. During a delegation to Lambton Shores' council on April 19th, I listened with interest to Ed Fluter's concerns about the lack of communication from the municipality and his belief that the $1500 annual rental fee is far too low. I now also understand that area residents are concerned about potential parking congestion, excessive noise and impediments to the comfortable, spontaneous use of the North Beach for non-structured, family-based activities.
My goal is to do the right thing for residents, businesses and guests in our community. This is a tall order that can only be accomplished through collaboration. I therefore invite all interested parties to attend a PVB-hosted information meeting at the Grand Bend school at 9:00 a.m. on May 1,st. to learn more about PVB's vision for volleyball on the North Beach.
Following the information meeting and further pubic input, I'll encourage council to take another look at both PVB's business plan and the contents of the license with Lambton Shores. With thanks to Ed Fluter's delegation, I feel better informed about resident's concerns and will work to incorporate them into the resulting solution. You can Email your comments to johndehondt@hay.net.
John Dehondt
Ward 1 Councillor
Lambton Shores
Blocking Beach VolleyBall
Blocking beach volleyball
Residents dig their heels in
By BY LYNDA HILLMAN-RAPLEY-Lakeshore Advance
It's not that some of the people in Grand Bend's Plan 24 don't love volleyball-- quite the contrary. The negatives, they say, for the proposed operation "seem to outweigh the positives."
Over the net, others are thrilled with the benefits and opportunities this program will bring.
In late 2009 Professional Volleyball (PVB) came to Lambton Shores council with a proposal to set up a volleyball school on Grand Bend's north beach, comprising of approximately 2,430 square meters. This is a municipality- owned beach in a residential area.
From the very beginning, there were full intentions the people affected would be notified. Communication would be key. With that in mind, the group of residents says that never happened until they got a letter from PVB last week. PVB came to council in late 2009 and were greeted with open arms as this being something good for the businesses and plus for the economy.
As spokesperson for the group, Ed Fluter, a former Grand Bend municipal councilor told a group of 100 attending last week's council meetings that he was not only representing the beach front owners, but "all the residents of the community, the extended community, the businesses in the community and the beach users in general."
300 residents, including 25 businesses signed a petition.
Fluter listed two major concerns, one being the licensing by the municipality to run a "for profit" program.
"Our concern is that this commercial company from Markham, which has the potential to make a considerable amount of money will use 2,430 square meters or more of the north beach at little or no charge, install 15 semi-permanent courts to run their youth and adult programs. In addition, says Fluter, they have been given the right to run five weekend tournaments (two on long weekends) along with the right to acquire alcohol licensing for these tournaments.
"The program will be allowed to operate seven days a week, 10-12 hours a day for five of the prime summer months for the next ten years, with an option to renew," said Fluter.
Concerns
Fluter told council communication about this program has been abysmal or virtually non-existent both by the municipality and PVB. "We are incensed that council sanctioned this program before there was any information or input from the community.
The second concern, says Fluter, is the 'for profit' commercial activity, in spite of the marketed benefits, not be allowed on any of the public beaches. Fluter says Grand Bend pays the lion's share of taxes in the municipality and are opposed to a company coming in and using one of the prime pieces of real estate (that being the beach) for a nominal rent, little overhead, no taxes and a potential to make large profits.
Flluter also takes issue with PVB having concession (food and beverage and an option for liquor license) rights.
After Fluter spoke, Ward 1 councilor John Dehondt said the unexpected opposition "blows him away." He asked council to reconsider the request for this program to come in. He did not get a seconder for that motion. Mayor Gord Minielly said there is a process to follow and PVB has scheduled a public meeting for May 1. This will come back to council May 3. ...click for more
Residents dig their heels in
By BY LYNDA HILLMAN-RAPLEY-Lakeshore Advance
It's not that some of the people in Grand Bend's Plan 24 don't love volleyball-- quite the contrary. The negatives, they say, for the proposed operation "seem to outweigh the positives."
Over the net, others are thrilled with the benefits and opportunities this program will bring.
In late 2009 Professional Volleyball (PVB) came to Lambton Shores council with a proposal to set up a volleyball school on Grand Bend's north beach, comprising of approximately 2,430 square meters. This is a municipality- owned beach in a residential area.
From the very beginning, there were full intentions the people affected would be notified. Communication would be key. With that in mind, the group of residents says that never happened until they got a letter from PVB last week. PVB came to council in late 2009 and were greeted with open arms as this being something good for the businesses and plus for the economy.
As spokesperson for the group, Ed Fluter, a former Grand Bend municipal councilor told a group of 100 attending last week's council meetings that he was not only representing the beach front owners, but "all the residents of the community, the extended community, the businesses in the community and the beach users in general."
300 residents, including 25 businesses signed a petition.
Fluter listed two major concerns, one being the licensing by the municipality to run a "for profit" program.
"Our concern is that this commercial company from Markham, which has the potential to make a considerable amount of money will use 2,430 square meters or more of the north beach at little or no charge, install 15 semi-permanent courts to run their youth and adult programs. In addition, says Fluter, they have been given the right to run five weekend tournaments (two on long weekends) along with the right to acquire alcohol licensing for these tournaments.
"The program will be allowed to operate seven days a week, 10-12 hours a day for five of the prime summer months for the next ten years, with an option to renew," said Fluter.
Concerns
Fluter told council communication about this program has been abysmal or virtually non-existent both by the municipality and PVB. "We are incensed that council sanctioned this program before there was any information or input from the community.
The second concern, says Fluter, is the 'for profit' commercial activity, in spite of the marketed benefits, not be allowed on any of the public beaches. Fluter says Grand Bend pays the lion's share of taxes in the municipality and are opposed to a company coming in and using one of the prime pieces of real estate (that being the beach) for a nominal rent, little overhead, no taxes and a potential to make large profits.
Flluter also takes issue with PVB having concession (food and beverage and an option for liquor license) rights.
After Fluter spoke, Ward 1 councilor John Dehondt said the unexpected opposition "blows him away." He asked council to reconsider the request for this program to come in. He did not get a seconder for that motion. Mayor Gord Minielly said there is a process to follow and PVB has scheduled a public meeting for May 1. This will come back to council May 3. ...click for more
Letters to Council -May 2010
The letter below was sent to council in early May. When Council sends replies those will be posted as well.-LSCA
Council May310
Council May310
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)