{"id":17902,"date":"2016-11-27T07:27:42","date_gmt":"2016-11-27T12:27:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/?p=17902"},"modified":"2016-11-27T07:27:42","modified_gmt":"2016-11-27T12:27:42","slug":"i-used-to-like-him-not-so-much-now","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ianchadwick.com\/blog\/i-used-to-like-him-not-so-much-now\/","title":{"rendered":"I used to like him; not so much now…"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

<\/g><\/svg><\/i> \"Loading\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\"John<\/a>Back in the ’70s when he ran for mayor and we both lived in Toronto, I voted for John Sewell<\/a>.<\/strong> And when he won, I was a big supporter of his human-scale policies and planning, and enjoyed his youthful vigour and vision. Now, not so much. Sure, he’s a smart, well-spoken, erudite man with a long list of credentials. But he’s also wrong. At least about one issue: our hospital.<\/p>\n

Sewell and Collingwood resident Karina Dahlin<\/a> (former Editor, executive communications, the Hospital for Sick Children, according to LinkedIn<\/a>) wrote an opinion piece for TVO’s online magazine<\/a> titled, “Health care gaps: Ontario forcing sprawl by putting hospitals at the periphery.” Sorry, but that’s nonsense.<\/p>\n

Both writers are members of the local committee<\/a> formed to fight the proposed move of the hospital from its near-central location to a new site on the periphery of town. Why Sewell – whose bio states he lives in Toronto – is so involved in Collingwood politics mystifies me.<\/p>\n

Sewell was a darling of some former VOTE (Voters Opposed To Everything) members; years ago he was brought in to speak about several issues like planning and growth, mostly in support of their own notions (VOTE, as you know, killed the Admiral Collingwood development which would now be a stunning, income-generating anchor to the downtown had they not interfered).<\/p>\n

I’ve written about the hospital in the past (here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a> for example) – mostly about The Block’s (and the administration’s) ongoing war against the hospital, its development committee and its board. It is a battle between The Block’s id\u00e9e fixe<\/a> and the greater good of the community, between personal and public agendas.<\/p>\n

While the article makes some good points, it’s not exactly an unbiased and objective look. And in part their argument is based on a faulty association: a big city and a small town. They write:<\/p>\n

It is occurring so frequently that it appears to be ministry policy: don\u2019t build a new hospital in the centre of town, only on the periphery. That’s what has happened in Owen Sound, St. Catharines, North Bay, Oakville, Peterborough, Barrie, Cobourg, and other communities.
\nAnd there are plans to do the same thing in Windsor, where the two large downtown hospitals are slated to be torn down and a new $2-billion facility built out beyond the city\u2019s airport; in Collingwood, where the downtown hospital would be demolished and a new $400-million facility built among farmers\u2019 fields, beyond what town council calls its \u201cbuilt boundary;\u201d and in Bracebridge and Huntsville, where two hospitals would be demolished and a new one built literally halfway between the communities, in the bush.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We are relatively similar in size to Owen Sound and Coburg, but not to any of the others. Certainly what happens in Windsor or Oakville cannot be reasonably compared. The differences in land values in the core versus those in the outskirts are so much greater in cities that you cannot compare the economics in such communities. Plus they are single-tier municipalities and we are second-tier.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The article is full of such idealistic but inaccurate simplicities. We are told nothing about the circumstances of these communities, their finances, the age or condition of their existing hospitals, their catchment area, local demographics or the reasons for a move. We cannot in good faith judge them even vaguely similar without a lot<\/em> more information.<\/p>\n

Lumping them together for ideological purposes creates no semblance of continuity or commonality. We must know more and judge each on its own merits to make an opinion valid.<\/p>\n

And don’t forget a crucial, overlooked factor: The Collingwood General & Marine Hospital is a regional<\/em> facility. It doesn’t serve merely Collingwood; its role in our collective wellbeing is not defined by the razor-sharp lines of municipal boundaries. If it did, their arguments would carry more weight. Being regional, it serves Blue Mountains, Clearview, Stayner, Wasaga Beach and the rural community – a catchment area with about 100,000 people of whom about a quarter live in Collingwood. Having a hospital in central Collingwood is of no advantage to the majority of the people the CG&MH serves.<\/p>\n

However, having it situated closer to the highway, with easier access for emergency vehicles and for the numerous out-of-town residents seems more equitable for the vast majority of people it serves.<\/p>\n

Let’s look at the article’s headline: forcing sprawl by putting hospitals at the periphery<\/em>. Well, that’s not true because sprawl is mostly associated with single-family homes and commercial mall development. Of which there is none in the immediate neighbourhood of the proposed, industrial site and (to the best of my knowledge) no new residential developments, malls or strip malls are planned for that part of town in the immediate future. And there are no farmers’ fields on the Collingwood side (only on the Clearview side because that land is zoned rural).<\/p>\n

But even without a hospital, all<\/em> of this municipality will eventually be developed because Collingwood is identified as a growth node by both the province (Places to Grow Act)<\/a> and by Simcoe County (official plan)<\/a>. Growth will include a lot of single family dwellings – sprawl, if you will – whether the hospital moves or not. It’s disingenuous to suggest the hospital will be the source of that growth and the attendant sprawl.<\/p>\n

The last few provincial policy statements<\/a> have insisted on core intensification in communities, so I would argue the province is not<\/em> trying to promote sprawl, but instead to contain it. Smart Growth America<\/a> says this about sprawl:<\/p>\n

“Sprawl is defined as the process in which the spread of development across the landscape far outpaces population growth. The landscape sprawl creates has four dimensions:<\/p>\n