The NSCC Marconi campus is getting relocated to downtown Sydney. The new campus location will include the parcel of land currently occupied by the Sydney fire station on the Esplanade. While the need to relocate the fire station itself isn't a controversial topic, the new location chosen has raised a great deal of public concern, particularly among those who attend the Highland Arts Theatre. The CBRM intends to build the new fire station at Pitt and George Streets on a parking lot that is very convenient for theatregoers.
There are really three primary sources of discord right now:
- Is the location chosen actually the best location for the effectiveness of the fire service?
- Will the location adversely impact the theatre due to siren noise or loss of convenient parking?
- The CBRM's refusal to engage in public consultation.
I read the "GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM EMERGENCY SERVICES RESPONSE CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS" report by the International Association of Fire Fighters. I'd like to share some of the notable things I learned from that report and ongoing discussion.
The report clearly recommends public consultation
Despite the CBRM's Chief Administrative Officer, Marie Walsh, suggesting that the public doesn't need to be involved in decisions related to public safety, that is not what the International Association of Fire Fighters believes. The point they make on page 3 is clear enough that I can provide it to you without any need for additional explanation:
"The fire department (both administration and frontline personnel), and the community should all have input and come to an agreement on where to place any new fire stations within the jurisdiction."
Participate in Community Discussion in the "Help The Hat" Facebook Group
The report makes its limitations clear
The report outlines other factors that can be used in making a determination of the best location. The model they use simply estimates the percentage of the streets and roads firefighters can reach within four minutes. And obviously, the objective of this model is to increase that percentage as much as possible.
"It is a starting point for determining fire station locations based on chosen demand. Other factors may play a role in final station locations that go beyond GIS capabilities such as anticipated community risk, frequency of simultaneous calls for service, level of service demanded by the community, and available land."
They elaborate further on other factors that can be considered in a more complete analysis:
"Other demand points that could be used in the analysis, if data are available, are historical incident locations, future population growth predictions, and municipal planning and zoning proposals. Historical incident data shows where demand concentrations have occurred. Future population growth predictions, in conjunction with the municipality’s planning and zoning strategies, could be used to determine areas of future demand that may occur as the community expands into new areas. Historical incident data and future growth are critical elements when deciding where to place fire stations."
The current location is "better" than the newly selected location (Pitt at George St)
In terms of the 4-minute coverage model, the current fire station location can get to 63.0% of all roads covered. That's over 15.2% more area covered quickly at the present location than the new location. Of course, keeping the existing location is obviously not an option.
The second unchosen location option (Glenwood at George St) is also "better" than the newly selected location
In terms of the 4-minute coverage model, the Glenwood at George St. location can get to 66.0% of all roads covered. That's over 21.1% more area covered quickly than the new location.
The newly selected location degrades coverage to Membertou, King's Road, Alexandra Street, and the Newlands Avenue area
The current location and the unchosen option (Glenwood at George St) both provide much better service to these areas within the 4-minute benchmark. By moving the new station a little deeper into the downtown centre, it's effectively moved farther out of range from these other important areas with a lot of population density, multiple-story apartment complexes, and commercial development.
The CBRM only identified a single location (Pitt and George St)
When the CBRM rejects public consultation requests, it may largely because they never intended to consider any other location than the site next to the HAT.
The report is brief and sticks to its limited scope. Here are some additional general observations:
Only Councillor McDougall has pushed for public consultation
She's been shut down by Mayor Clarke, CAO Walsh, and her council colleagues including Bruckschwaiger who (at the fire services committee meeting on March 3rd) essentially expressed his dislike for public consultation. He would prefer public consultations where everyone shows up only to express their gratitude and heap praise upon them for their outstanding decision making. If he expects universal agreement and harmony in political matters, it's likely that he chose the wrong career path.
The IAFF report does not justify the CBRM's decision on location or lack of public consultation
The report essentially suggested another location was better (based on the 4-minute coverage analysis) and completely contradicts the CBRM's assertion that public consultation isn't necessary when it comes to public safety-related decisions. Perhaps they didn't read the report very closely?
Public consultation is happening anyway... in the form of protest
Although the CBRM may have selected their preferred (and only) location and rejected public consultation, all they did was create further difficulty for themselves. A protest was held at the CBRM already, and the organizers are discussing additional actions. The media had no choice but to take note and there's been coverage by the Cape Breton Post, and the CBC. The topic was also pressed again by Councillor McDougall in the fire services committee meeting. As such, by rejecting a formal process, they just provoked a protest and attracted greater media focus instead of just engaging the public in the first place. That's the reward for rejecting public input. Was it a wise decision?
Public consultation wouldn't have stopped the CBRM from choosing the location
The reality is that if the CBRM had checked a box and held a public consultation (a couple of hours in the Centre 200 concourse, the Civic Centre, the Joan Harriss Pavilion, or even the HAT itself), they would not have changed their minds.
Immense public pressure didn't work with Archibald's Wharf, and it would not have worked here. Nonetheless, the public would have had their say and could have challenged the decision-makers directly. It's just one of those celebrated aspects of democracy and responsible governance.
I could contemplate the political motivations such as how badly certain MLAs, the mayor, and the councillors may need construction to be underway with elections looming, but it's an everpresent factor in most government decisions, and par for the course.
It's certainly unfortunate that the CBRM is stubbornly dismissive of working with the public. If they really felt certain there was no other location, concerns of impact to the HAT were unwarranted, and the decision was truly the best option for public safety, then there was absolutely no reason to avoid spending a few hours with the key stakeholders available to make the case for it. They were never going to do more than that anyway.
After all, that is their job. They do work for us. And, sometimes, working for us involves working with us - even when they're fully convinced that we're just a bother and poor investment of their time.
While the outcome is likely unchangeable at this point, recognition is certainly due to all those who have raised their voices in defence of their community and the wonderful Highland Arts Theatre. The HAT is one of the most positive developments in our community. It improves the quality of our lives, creates opportunities in the arts, and inspires people to visit the downtown again. It's unfortunate to see it taken for granted and given less than the full respect, appreciation, and opportunity for input that it truly deserves.
NOTE: The views expressed above are my own and do not represent lokol (goCapeBreton.com). Read more
14
Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.- 1
arrow-eseek-e1 - 7 of 7 itemsFacebook Comments