Everybody seems to like the new University College of the North (UCN) campus, but quite a few Thompsonites still have reservations about the university's plan to create 24 townhouse-style residences for student families adjacent to the new campus.
At a public hearing held Jan. 10 by the Thompson Planning District Board, which is composed of the entirety of city council including the mayor, plus representatives from the province as well as the Local Government District of Mystery Lake - though board member Brad Evenson excused himself from the meeting as soon as it began, citing conflict of interest - dozens of Thompsonites came out to voice their opinions, with the majority coming down opposed to the idea.
The hearing dealt with a proposed amendment to the development agreement for the campus, specifically the issue of whether the province - acting on behalf of UCN - would be permitted to use part of the land for student residences. According to an informal poll taken by the Thompson Citizen, 16 people spoke out against the amendment, while 13 spoke in favour. (The official numbers may be slightly different, as some speakers were hesitant or unwilling to commit to formal objections or formal approval.) However, all of those voting in favour and nearly all of the objectors told the Planning District Board that they were in favour of the campus as a whole, while others simply did not mention that aspect - nobody outright opposed UCN as a whole.
"I'm not opposed to the campus, I'm opposed to the rezoning," said Lyle Miller. "I feel that rezoning this particular parcel of land for this particular reason will prove to be a giant mistake." Miller also suggested a number of alternatives, including renovating or retrofitting the Polaris buildings on the existing campus, for which no use has been determined after the new campus is built, and working with landlords to see if they would be willing to open up more units specifically for students.
The potential loss of some recreational grounds, including the baseball diamonds, also brought out some Thompsonites. Jack Sangster, son of ballpark namesake Red Sangster, noted that "a lot of blood, sweat, and tears went into building that rec centre" and suggested that the planning board "step back to take a moment to see how the other side feels."
"In the order of priorities, of what we need to live, baseball doesn't quite make the cut for me," retorted Sharon McKay. McKay also highlighted the need for affordable housing in Thompson - noting that the Keewatin Housing Authority's waiting list stretches back to 2005 - and suggested that UCN's enrollment figure of 30 per cent of its students coming from outside Thompson would be higher if more out-of-town students were able to find a place to stay.
Others took a more long-range view of events, wondering what would happen once UCN outgrows the new campus. "Why would we take out university space and put housing there?" wondered Ellen Dale. "Why wouldn't we save the space? Eventually we will put other buildings there."
"This is not about stopping affordable housing," agreed Carolyn Turpie. "This is about doing it right to make sure these students have the best chance to succeed in the future." Volker Beckmann noted that the rezoning would eliminate any possibility of a wolf park in the area where it had planned to go, dealing a blow to Thompson's ecotourism industry. He also suggested that Smith Carter, the architectural firm behind both the new UCN campus and the Thompson Regional Community Centre renovations, had several alternative models for student family housing which had not been presented to the public.
As they had at the previous public hearing on the matter, held Nov. 8, Fred Palmer and Milton Goble spoke on behalf of the Wildlife Association, which may well find itself fighting for its survival should the project go ahead. "We will be out of business, period," said Goble.
Chief among the Wildlife Association's concerns is that their building will be virtually inaccessible during construction - and after completion of the campus, they will have to share limited parking with UCN and the rec centre facilities. As much of their revenue depends on renting out their hall, Goble said this will put the group in a financially inviable position. He also noted that the activities which take place at the Wildlife Association could lead to the organization being considered "unwelcome neighbours. That is not a role we would like."
A number of UCN students and staff also spoke in favour of the proposal. "What's the best place for students and their families to be but the zoo and baseball diamonds?" wondered Marie-Eve Mongrain, president of the UCN Student Association Council. "They can go there and play all week long. This is going to bring more people to those activities that might not use them."
Many of the objectors repeated points which were brought up in a flyer which was circulated around town late last week, written by a group identified as only the "Concerned Citizen's Coalition." The flyer summarized several of the most common objections to the housing, including the forced relocation of Nickel Days, unknown costs for taxpayers, and potential traffic headaches.
The only speaker to directly reference the flyer was Diane Rogers, who agreed with its contents. "We are looking at Cadillac housing on a Ford Focus budget, and by the time Vale is finished with us, we're not even going to be able to afford to have a K-car," she said. "This is too expensive, too limiting, and doesn't provide enough for students. We need to know how much it's going to cost, and what it's going to cost every property owner in this city." Dawn Sands likely also had the flyer in mind when she said that "the people who are intentionally spreading misinformation and fear-mongering clearly do not grasp how important the UCN campus, complete with family housing and daycare, is to our community collectively." Conversely, Wayne Hall accused the city of being the ones to distribute "misinformation, lack of information, and secrecy."
The Concerned Citizen's Coalition surfaced again later in the night, when the planning board was addressed by J. Graeme E. Young of the Winnipeg law firm Restall & Restall, who was speaking on behalf of the group but did not reveal the names of any of its members.
Restall & Restall, and specifically Young's colleague W. Richard Whidden, has challenged the project in the past. Last July, Whidden sent a letter to the city on behalf of a group of Thompsonites, challenging the ability to place housing on the site without the rezoning process that is now underway.
Young took issue this time with the composition of the Thompson Planning District Board, specifically its sharing nine members with Thompson City Council. "You're telling yourselves what you should or should not do," he said. "Whether the decision is for the housing or against the housing, the perception of the reasonably informed person - and we have many of them here - will be that there was no added input from planning district to city council. You've made up your minds already."
"It's impossible for the reasonably educated person to think that you have the ability to divide your role as planning district from city council," he continued. "The courts are loathe to sustain that type of decision-making process." Young also suggested that members of both past and present city councils are in conflict of interest positions with regards to the project.
These assertions did not sit well with board member Dennis Fenske. "The fact of the matter is that since inception this board and council, to my knowledge, has operated in that manner, with representation from the LGD and the province at the board level, and then mayor and council."
The Planning District Board was not legally able to vote on this matter that night, but a decision must be reached within 30 days of the hearing. A date of Jan. 17 was proposed for the next meeting, at which point board member Stella Locker introduced a motion to table the resolution, putting off setting the next meeting until the city has received legal advice in response to Young's presentation. That motion finished in a 5-5 tie, meaning it was defeated. Ultimately, the meeting was scheduled for Jan. 17 in a 7-3 vote, with Locker, board member Judy Kolada, and board member Luke Robinson voting against.
