Who is Where on the WSE? Part One: Council Candidates

People have been asking us for a complete list of council candidates’ positions on this issue. Here it is! We note that in most cases positions and engagement on the WSE line up with candidates’ views on sustainability, cycling, greenspace, public transit, etcetera — so this one “bellwether” issue has wider significance for the kind of City Council Kingston chooses. We are pleased that whereas at the beginning of the campaign only SIX candidates were declared against the WSE, now there are FOURTEEN!

Against the WSE:

Richard Allen (Countryside)

Maureen Good (Portsmouth)

Roger Healey (Lakeside)

Mary Rita Holland (Kingscourt-Rideau)

Rob Hutchison (King’s Town)

Joan Jardin (Lakeside)

Jeff McLaren (Meadowbrook-Strathcona)

Jim Neill (Williamsville)

Lisa Osanic (Collins-Bayridge)

Floyd Patterson (Trillium)

James Sayeau (Loyalist-Cataraqui)

Liz Schell (Portsmouth)

Peter Stroud (Sydenham)

Alexander Young (Portsmouth)

For: Ryan Boehme (Pittsburgh), Lindsey Foster (King’s Town), Adam Koven (Sydenham), Jordan West (King’s Town)

Undecided or Unclear: Sandy Berg (Meadowbrook-Strathcona), Ryan Low (King’s Town), Rob Matheson (Trillium), Leo Ragusa (Collins-Bayridge), Ed Smith (Williamsville)

Not Now: Kevin Dressler (Trillium)

No information or response to inquiries: Adam Candon, Bonnie Ferguson, Kevin George, Tom Gingrich, Kevin Holland, Joyce MacLeod Kane, Sean Murphy, Wayne Owens, Karen Pagratis, TK Pritchard, Jeff Scott, Carsten Sorensen, George Sutherland, Laura Turner, Tommy Vallier, Ruth Wannamacher

Further information on the Kings’ Town candidates can be found on our page Council Candidate Positions.

Additional Comments Communicated to Wellington X

Richard Allen (Countryside)

While I feel the Third Crossing is an important link to add to our transportation network, I do not believe the Wellington Extension to be, and I do not believe their fates are entwined. The extension has been part of the City’s plan for a long time, but I do not think it is in line with the other goals and plans that the city has set forth for itself in regards to sustainability, waterfront access, and making better use of our current inventory of roads.   In addition, the traffic demand for simply is not there – it is more cost effective to improve the efficiency and capacity of the roads we already have. In fact we have a road maintenance deficit across Kingston, and we should consider improving the roads we have before building new ones.

Kevin Dressler (Trillium)

As this city grows there will be a need to build more roads and extend existing roads to take the pressure off other major routes. In the end traffic is free flowing and less accidents. Less car emissions due to people moving quickly to where ever they are going rather then sitting in traffic burning fuel. However, I feel it is a project that should be put on the back burner. The money can be best spent elsewhere, such as, finishing the widening of John Counter with an overpass. As everyone knows, a lot of potholes need to fixed and roads resurfaced.

Maureen Good (Portsmouth)

I have followed and studied the Third Crossing for years. I almost went to the OMB to fight it but, other Kingstonians lead the charge. I am against the Third Crossing and I am against the Wellington St extension. If at some time in the future if the Third Crossing was built and if the City of Kingston allowed downtown to be seriously negatively affected by the traffic from the Third Crossing then something would have to be done. I am in total agreement it is an old project on the books, seriously outdated for the times and should undergo a re-examination.

Roger Healey (Lakeside)

The Wellington Street Extension project reminds me of the ill-fated Spadina Expressway project of Toronto in the late sixties. Jane Jacobs lobbied successfully to get it cancelled, arguing that it was the construction of expressways into major American cities that led to an exodus of the middle class, and the death of once-vibrant downtown cores. Why must we repeat the mistakes of the past? Read about Jane Jacobs and the Spadina Expressway and you will see many parallels to the Wellington X situation. Almost fifty years ago!

Joan Jardin (Lakeside)

I am opposed to the Wellington Street extension for the following reasons:

  1. Douglas Fluhrer Park will have a street beside it where now it has a lane way. This will change the nature of the park from a tranquil peaceful place to a noisy, exhaust filled space.
  2. The street will encroach on Douglas Fluhrer Park, at parts it will completely cover the greenspace.
  3. The street will cut off the park from the neighbourhood; access will be hindered.
  4. Contrary to the Waterfront Plan, it will reduce access to the waterfront
  5. The extension would be promoting the use of cars to get downtown; this is contrary to the push for improved public transit.
  6. The extension is related to the third crossing of which I am not if favour.
  7. The benefits to reducing traffic flow elsewhere are questionable.

I want to celebrate the things that make Kingston special. The waterfront and green spaces make Kingston a great place to live. This extension reduces citizen’s quality of life.

Rob Matheson (Trillium)

The Wellington Street Extension is a supposed precursor to any 3 Crossing “bridge” concept. I feel we have many options we can explore collaboratively with the core vision of preserving green space and enhancing the waterfront and ensuring accessible public availability and community use. In fact I have stated that I would like to explore all options to do with a ‘3rd crossing’ including looking at Ferry systems. I believe we as a community can creatively innovate our own Kingston-made solution to this opportunity. The citizens and community must be brought into the process, and listened to. It is by working with citizens and groups such as WellingtonX, towards a shared positive outcome, that we can creatively find solutions and consensus driven ways forward. Should the project proceed, changes can and should be made to the scope, to adjust the impact felt by citizens and the waterfront parkland, and natural habitats. I will work to ensure that occurs. It is time we worked with citizens inclusively, and make them a part of their neighborhood planning and development process while always striving towards our goal of becoming Canada’s most sustainable city.

Jeff McLaren (Meadowbrook Strathcona)

I believe that the WSX is ill conceived for at least two reasons: 1) it destroys park space and 2) the people do not want it. I have heard over and over again as I have gone door to door that people want the potholes fixed and the roads repaired. Having talked to staff I have learned that the city is only $6 million short this year of what it needs to maintain the roads optimally. I would like to move money from the New road construction budget (the $35 million from the WSX) to the road maintenance budget so that we can have smooth roads again.

Lisa Osanic (Collins-Bayridge)

I do not support the Wellington St. extension being built south of Railway St. I was at the 2005 Open House for the extension. Building a major road along a waterfront is archaic planning from the 1970s!   Progressive cities don’t do that anymore. Waterfront is too precious. Besides the environmental consequences of salt, sand, oil, and debris that would wash from this extension into the Cataraqui River, the road would also cut the Douglas Fluhrer Park in half as the proposed extension runs so close to the water at one point, all of the hundred year old trees at this point would have to be removed. How ridiculous!   There are speed humps along Rideau St. They are very effective in slowing cars down. Cars that want to move faster can use Montreal St. and that is the purpose of Montreal St. – to move traffic north and south. We do not need the major road ( I saw plans for 4 lanes, but I would not even support 2 lanes) running along the Cataraqui River cutting through a waterfront park.

Floyd Paterson (Trillium)

Beyond Metal Craft Marine and the marina Wellington Street should be integrated into the park and be part of a trail that will extend as far as possible on an elevated walkway over wetlands, eventually reaching Kingston Mills; the Davis Tannery lands will need street access; the primary purpose of the third crossing is to disperse east-west traffic onto Brock, Johnson, John Counter Boulevard, Sir John A Boulevard, Princess Street West, and Taylor-Kidd; the downtown will continue to be serviced by La Salle Causeway, Montreal and Division Streets. The Third Crossing will unify our city, growing commercial services east of the Cataraqui River. Don’t be anti-motor vehicle, be pro-conserving the natural environment and upgrading vehicle access, both for the multitude, whether on foot, or on wheels, and plan intelligently this different sharing of sevices and open space. The Transportation Master Plan needs to be re-written. I don’t live just in one Kingston district, I live in the whole city!! That’s my pan-Kingston view.

James Sayeau (Loyalist Cataraqui)

I am against Wellington St. Extension. It’s a good spot for public and community groups to gather. The Wellington St. Extension would destroy the natural beauty of the landscape and drive away wildlife that eat and live in the area -ie; ducks and geese. If I’m voted in as Councillor, I will be voting against this project.

Peter Stroud (Sydenham)

The only type of change I see would be beneficial at the end of the paved part of Wellington would be to convert that potholed gravel road into a bicycle path. If it were paved for cars, not only would it be expensive, it would be a road splitting off and then rejoining the same flow, unless there were indeed a 3rd crossing, which I believe would be a waste of money for what it did to improve traffic flow.

Alexander Young (Portsmouth)

Thank you for giving me a forum to state my position on the Wellington Street Extension. I don’t take spending our money very lightly. I am very frugal in my approach to issues. I do not endorse large expenditures that will cost everyone more money in these trying economic times. In order for an expenditure to be justified I think it needs to pay off big-time in terms of job opportunities, community enjoyment or a real improvement in quality of life. Lastly in regards to the waterfront I think the song says it best, I do not want to “pave paradise and put up a parking lot.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s