Arrow Head Springs – Post Mortem
By Matt Nesrallah
It was the summer of 1999 and the new millennium was on the horizon. Arrow Head Springs was set to revolutionize the amusement/entertainment market in Ottawa/Gatineau. It was designed to be a park where people do things, as opposed to most other entertainment in Ottawa that has things being done to people. The park was to incorporate many seasonal activities. The main attractions to the site included several mini-golf courses with various themes (family, recreational, “pro”), a go-kart track similar in style to many found in the US market with longer tracks, faster cars and many additional track features not found in this area (bridges, overpasses, underpasses, etc), a large bumper boat pond with dozens of boats including several double riders, interactive and instructional nature trails winding through the site with several themes (palaeontology walks, local geography trails, history of the Ottawa River, etc). Also onsite we were to have several tenants who were to cohabitate the site including a flagship building for Little Ray’s Reptile Adventure (LRRA) that would have complemented the site. The site was also to have had a snack bar with refreshments for the guests.
This project was undertaken by Manchester Development Corporation (MDC) with the key players being Dr Bruce Firestone, Fred Carmosino and myself. We understood the need for family-oriented activities in Ottawa and more importantly in the city’s east. This project was to be a destination location in and would be a draw for the entire Ottawa region and beyond.
AHS was to be situated on a 50-acre parcel of land on Hwy 174 (Old Hwy 17)/Tran Canada Highway) at the far-eastern edge of the former Region of Ottawa Carleton in the Township of Cumberland. This route is the scenic eastern access to the Nation’s Capital from Montreal (only 150 kms east). After extensive research this site was chosen for a number of reasons. First, it was important to have a water feature and/or water access to the site in order to expand with future recreation-tourism activities. This site was the largest privately held parcel with water frontage on any of the local waterways (Rideau and Ottawa Rivers). Because of Ottawa’s stature as the Nation’s Capital, much of the waterfront is owned or controlled by the National Capital Commission or the Federal Government who prefer to run roadways along the water than to properly develop them to a higher and better use. The balance of the waterfront has already been developed through the years for non-congruent waterfront communities with private access and ownership. We viewed the rivers as great community assets and this project would have provided a quasi-public access to the river frontage for recreational purposes.
Another reason for choosing this location was the demographics of this area. The eastern portion of the City is essentially a bedroom community for the federal public service. There are several key reasons why this is important. This area has the highest per capita disposable income in the region. Also, much of this population is families with children. When this project was proposed (and to this day), the area is underserved with family-oriented activities. It became clear to us however, why that is the case.
The former Region of Ottawa Carleton Official Plan identified this site as a location that fit the description of the uses we were intending. In fact, the OP designation included references to mini-golf and go-karts as potential uses for the site. The Vendor had earlier attempted to have a subdivision approved on this site. His application had been rejected based on the lack of good quality drinking water. The existing zoning was residential. In order to have the project approved for our use, it required an amendment to the zoning by-law. Before commencing the technical process, we solicited the feedback of the local political players.
The local MPP at the time was former long-time mayor of Cumberland Township, Brian Coburn. For many years preceding our project, Mr Coburn had encouraged Mr Firestone to bring some of his development projects to the eastern portion of the Region. It was obvious to Mr Coburn that his constituency needed more complimentary uses for the large residential community. Mr. Coburn was very much in favour of our project and believed it would be a major asset for his riding and that the Official Plan had intended a project of this nature for the site. He recommended that we also speak with the mayor at the time, Jerry Lalonde. Mr. Lalonde was a long-time councillor for this Township and an area businessman with a large horse ranch just a few kilometres south of the proposed site location. Being an area businessman and a local politician, Mr Lalonde saw AHS as a great opportunity to give his area a more positive reputation than simply a bedroom community. Mr. Carmosino, Mr. Firestone and I met Mayor Lalonde at his ranch and presented the concept of the project to him. His response was mixed. As an area entrepreneur, he believed the project to be viable and exciting. As a local political figure, he had a few reservations about the sentiment of the area residents. Immediately adjacent to the site on the west is a small incongruous middle to low-income community of early 1980s homes: LeVillage Boise. Mr Lalonde recommended that we do our due diligence and speak to the residents of this community and present our concept plan to them. He believed that any opposition to this project would likely originate there. This was outside of the requirements for public consultation as set out in the Planning Act but we understood the importance and took his advice. It took one week of evenings but Mr Carmosino and I went door-to-door to every home and spoke with the residents and presented our concept plan to them. Many of the residents had similar concerns regarding noise and trespassing. These concerns were easily overcome with changes to the proposal that included significant natural buffering and a fenced perimeter. Many of the residents with young children (approx 70%) saw the project as a potential part-time seasonal employer for their children and as such saw great value in having the project there. In an attempt to meet all challenges and opposition head-on in advance, we took it upon ourselves to meet and greet the residents immediately across the highway. There were a few scattered homes and the overwhelming majority saw our project as a welcome neighbour. They were not very concerned with noise as they were accustomed to the significant traffic flow on the highway primarily from large transport trucks that use the old two-lane highway as a short cut to Montreal and points east. Upon completion of this work, we were convinced that there would be very little to no opposition from our neighbours, as they had appreciated our open and up-front manner for presenting the project. We expected them to follow our project with interest through the planning process to ensure that it evolved as promised.
At this point, we met with the local planning staff. The director of planning for the eastern portion of the former region was Steve Cunliffe. Mr Cunliffe had been involved in the planning department at the City of Cumberland for a number of years and was very familiar with the eastern portion of the Region. His reception to our proposed project was the expected response from a career bureaucrat. Provided that the technical aspects of the project met with those in place, he had no objections. He did however mention the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) factor and warned us to be prepared for the area residents. He was impressed with the amount of work we had already completed in that area however.
From that point on, we were directed to deal directly with the head of planning for the City of Cumberland, Karen Currie. Ms Currie had a level of enthusiasm for our project that is rarely seen in a bureaucrat and particularly in a planner. Ms Currie’s enthusiasm may have been derived from a couple of sources. As a parent living in the east end of the Region, she saw the value this project would have on the quality of life of area residents, herself included. The vision of AHS also assisted her in resolving a challenge she and the by-law staff were experiencing with a resident the City of Cumberland. Once she saw our concept she mentioned to us that she had a great accessory use for our site and likely a tenant who would be interested in co-habitating with us. The people she was referring to were Paul and Sheri Goulet, the passionate couple behind Little Ray’s Reptile Adventure (LRRA). At that time, the Goulet’s were operating their unique reptile and insectarium out of the basement of their home in an urban area of Cumberland. The great majority of their business at the time was in transporting these reptiles, including Burmese Pythons, crocodiles and many other exotic reptiles, to local schools, fairs and residences for children’s birthday parties. They had no intention of continuing their operation in their home and Ms Currie and the by-law enforcement staff had no interest in allowing them to remain there. The Goulets had yet to find a proper setting for their permanent location and the by-law staff had no interest in evicting the reptiles from the home because they really had no intention of taking the reptiles in their custody. The Goulets were very interested in our project as they saw the potential of being part of a project of this size and we were excited as their participation added an off-season use for our site that would dramatically improve our cash flows and provide good diversification of activities on the site. While the inclusion of LRRA to our site was not a condition for approval, Ms Currie did appreciate the efforts we were making to incorporate them. She also saw the technical value of this project as the highest and best use for the site under the OP designation. We then were passed to Chris Brouwer who was a planner with the City of Cumberland for a number of years. With instruction from Ms Currie, Mr Brouwer was set to facilitate our journey through the rezoning and site plan approval process. In spite of being a resident of the Region’s west end, as a father of two Mr Brouwer saw the value of the project and the need it would fulfill in the Region.
With the approval in principal of the key local political players in place and the support of the planning staff to facilitate us through the process, we undertook to complete the necessary due diligence including soil and transportation engineering studies as well as a more detailed site plan in order to proceed with the formal public consultation portion of the process. Our initial public consultation was held at a local hockey arena in a meeting room. Mr Carmosino and I attended this meeting with a large-scale, colour site plan of the project as well as several of the technical studies we had prepared. Also in attendance were a number of our technical consultants and our designer along with Paul Goulet. Notice of the public meeting was sent to any and all residences within 2 kilometres of the site. Several residents of the Le Village Boise came out to the meeting to monitor our progress and ensure that we were sticking to our original plan. They were not disappointed. Also in attendance was a small group of residents from a community approximately two kilometres to the south of our site called Cumberland Estates. These people had some valid and pertinent questions in particular regarding noise from the go-karts and traffic impact on area streets. Mr. Carmosino and I, along with the planning staff and our technical consultants handled those questions and concerns. These responses, although technically accurate and correct, did not appear to be recognized by this group. It was only after several minutes of their questioning did it become apparent as to what was occurring. We were being ambushed.
It was clear that this group had no interest in seeing this project continue on to completion and no amount of rational, technical argument could be made to distract them. This meeting marked a significant point in the timeline of the project. When questioned as to what particular reason they had for not seeing the project continue a resident responded to me that it was nothing personal against us, in fact he found us very cordial and professional. It was nothing against the concept of the project, in fact he found it to be very well thought out and it satisfied a great need in the community and that it should be built just “not in my backyard.” There it was, at last the one objection we could not overcome with technical reports, market studies or even the explicit wording of the Official Plan that called for this use to be on this site long before Cumberland Estates existed. We had encountered the dreaded “Not In My Backyard” syndrome (NIMBY).
Before proceeding any further, it is important to first clearly identify these people in order to provide some context. During our preparation of the proposal, we had travelled extensively in the area to better learn who our neighbours would be and who would have an interest in the project. We had travelled as far as Cumberland Estates and there we found a subdivision of large, custom homes which was situated on a hill overlooking the highway, the Ottawa River and our site approximately two kilometres away. We discounted this development as a point of concern because of its distance from our site as the main concern was the sound of the go-karts (calculated to be a fraction of the decibel levels created by the transport trucks on the highway!). The residents of this subdivision were for the most part a very similar group in that they were typically all in their late 30s or early 40s and had families. Many of them were public servants while a few were professionals. As with almost any situation in life, a leader can be born from a void and for a need. In this case, the leader of this group was a vocal and vociferous stay at home mom, Mallory Anderson (not her real name). Ms Anderson’s complete skill set was never truly identified however her passion and focus, if applied in the proper manner, could no doubt be used to solve any of the various challenges that face the World today. Instead, Ms Anderson chose to focus her energies on our project and its defeat. In comparison to our neighbours in Le Village Boise, the residents of Cumberland Estates were seen to be better off financially and their yards were a sharp shade of green with pristine cut lawns while homes in Le Village Boise certainly showed their age and were for the most part not well kept. Image was more important to some than others. The view of the residents in the Estates was that having a project such as AHS in the community would have a negative impact on the value of their lands. They believed that homogeneity is the spice of life. Notwithstanding these views, we resolved to soldier on in our aim to build this much-needed project.
Given the results of the public consultation and the new information that we had received, we prepared to meet the challenge where it mattered most: in the Council Chambers. It was obvious that no matter the technical merit of our project, it would require the support of the Cumberland Council to get approval. At the end of the day it would be the politicians who would be responsible for approving the zoning by-law amendment. Mr Carmosino and I spent the next period of time lobbying the local councillors for their support with the technical merit and value-added arguments for the project. While we were endeavouring to complete the lobbying process, our opponents had taken a very different direction in their approach. They went to the media with tales of a “Disney-Style Theme Park” being proposed for their backyard. In its typical lazy fashion, the local media continued to fan the flames of dissent by presenting the story as a battle of the big developer vs. the locals in an unwanted project of inappropriate scale. There on the dinner-hour news we would see Ms Anderson spewing her vitriolic babble about the “roar” of the go-karts and what they would do to her quality of life. She also warned that there would be a breakout at LRRA and that the reptiles would escape resulting in untold turmoil and tragedy.
While the confidence of staff had changed slightly over the following weeks, their report to council for the rezoning proposal was favourable and they endorsed the application and recommended that council do the same. Through our lobbying, we discovered that the majority of councillors saw the objections as frivolous and petty and that the technical merit of our proposal outweighed the emotional arguments against. The matter would go to council on September 27, 1999.
That night we arrived at the Council Chambers with every member of the staff of MDC in attendance except for Mr Firestone (given his past experiences, his presence at public meetings rarely brings out the best in others). The Council Chambers soon filled with over 50 angry residents led by the “Queen NIMBY”, Ms Anderson. When Council reached our application on the agenda they asked for comments from the floor. What took place at this time was truly a depiction of how cold, uncalculated and ignorant a group of human beings can be. One after another, many of these highly educated residents stood and made passionate pleas against the approval of the project on grounds ranging from the danger that go-karts provide to its users to the “hundreds” of people who would surely be killed in traffic accidents while accessing our site from the highway. This continued for the next 2.5 hrs. It went on so long and the arguments were so illogical that one of the residents from Le Village Boise who came out to see what was all the fuss left half-way through and before leaving expressed to us his disappointment with the narrow vision of those residents. Unfortunately, when time did come for us to make our statements to Council, they appeared weary and exhausted, as did staff. We made brief statements to them and the few hardcore opponents who remained. Council voted to defer their decision. We had been publically lynched.
Following the meeting, we gathered for a brief meeting and agreed to spend the overnight pondering our position and our strategy. On one hand, Council could vote down our proposal and we could challenge it at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) level. A costly and time-consuming process but would likely side in our favour. On the other had, Council could vote to support our proposal and the NIMBYs could take us to the OMB to continue their fight to the bitter end. We would likely receive approval in either case but the process just became much longer and dramatically more expensive for a group of bootstrap entrepreneurs.
The morning of September 28th we met and discussed the above options. Despite being the targets of the anger and hostility of the previous evening, we were confident that if looked at objectively (the role of the OMB) we would eventually get approval. The male ego in our minds stated that we should summon our own convictions and beliefs and fight this project to the end because it was the right thing to do. While that was indeed a strong argument, it was the experience of Dr Firestone that reminded us that this project was for the community. He stated, “Zoning amendments require the support of the neighbours. While it is not always possible to have everyone agree to a project, it is a desirable goal.” We agreed and later that day we sent a letter to Mr Brouwer withdrawing our application. AHS was dead.
While it was a devastating blow to us personally and financially, it was ultimately a blow to the entire community. Today, just over 4 years later, this site remains undeveloped. Approval has been granted for five 10-acre residential lots. That water access to the river will likely be lost to private hands forever. This site remains a void in the community that does nothing to increase property values; in fact it effectively decreases them because of the massive gap it leaves. NIMBYs do not see this. They have their “victory”. They also have a void in their community (geographically and socially) and continue to rely on the rest of the City to provide them with recreation and entertainment activities.
The stupidity and hypocrisy that mobilized dozens to oppose our project and then celebrate its defeat can only be properly understood through the following anecdote. It was just after the Council meeting and our subsequent application withdrawal that Mr Firestone was at a dance class for one of his daughters at a facility in Kanata. In the waiting area where the parents sat while the children practiced, Mr Firestone was submerged in a local newspaper reading about the defeat of AHS when another father, Maurice (not his real name), spoke up in an attempt to gain Mr Firestone’s support and said “I was at that meeting. It was great, we yelled and shouted and made sure that they wouldn’t build that project in our community!” Mr Firestone kept his association out of the discussion and he asked “Maurice don’t you live in Cumberland?” Maurice answered yes, to which Mr Firestone inquired as to how long it takes Maurice to travel to Kanata for these dance lessons. Maurice replied: “Almost one hour each way. Twice a week that’s about four hours a week for her to take dance lessons!” Mr Firestone asked why Maurice would drive all the way from Cumberland to Kanata for dance lessons. “There’s nothing for kids to do in the east end” he stated, “Kanata gets everything!”
The defeat of Arrow Head Springs is an example of NIMBY syndrome at its strongest. The reality is that those who were in opposition to the project were rejecting a better quality of life for their families and the generations to come after them. This is of course not how the NIMBY sees this situation. They believe that it is better to have no development as opposed to development they do not fully understand the value of. Satirist Dennis Miller once stated that “A developer is someone who wants to build a home in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already owns a house in the woods.” In this case, the parallels to NIMBY are remarkable. Going forward, the challenge will no doubt be to push on in our development and our culture but we must have the strength and budget the energy required to drag the reluctant NIMBYs forward for their own good.
Copyright. Matt Nesrallah, Ottawa, Canada. October 2003
http://www.dramatispersonae.org/EnterpriseOfTheCity/HomePage/EnterpriseOfTheCityFrontPage.htm