Tag Archives: London

A Tale of Two Cities

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Apparently, winning in London depends on which side of the Atlantic you’re on.

Yesterday London, England surprised many and plucked the 2012 Olympics out from under France’s nose. And, in a cosmic balancing of franco-anglo relations, Montreal edged out London, Ontario for the rights to the Shiners Children’s Hospital.

So while they break out the party hats on Downing Street, there will be a noticeable lack of fezzes on display in The Forest City. And instead of developing a new site to help sick kids, Londoners on this side of the Atlantic will have to find a cure for bruised egos.

But once the shock and disappointment of losing what was, at one point, professed to be a sure thing passes, North American Londoners will have to realize that it’s time to strike while the iron is hot and capitalize on whatever increased recognition the city may have earned from this five-year process.

However, London’s representatives at the conference almost erased any goodwill with an inflammatory video that alleged the proposed site of a new Shriners Hospital in Montreal’s Glen Yards – next to McGill’s planned superhospital – is contaminated. That game of dirty pool has put London behind the eight ball in terms of public relations.

While all parties were making nice afterwards and saying the right things about mending fences and working together in the future for the benefit of the children, the fact of the matter is that London and Montreal’s delegations have acted more like kids themselves during this process.

Whether it was questionable accusations about contaminated land or supercilious dismissals over the status of London as a major player in the medical game, both sides haven’t come out of this unscathed. But with the right attitude going forward, London’s loss could end up being a win-win-win situation for all parties involved.

Win #1 – The city of Montreal retains the Shriners Hospital, and whether they choose to renovate the existing Mount Royal location or invest in building a new site, the city is assured of remaining a hub for specialized pediatric care in North America.

Win #2 – The Shriners, despite what Londoners may think, made the right decision. Essentially, they were taken for granted by the powers-that-be in Montreal, who ignored requests for concessions until it was almost too late. In the end, the Shriners were able to use London’s efforts to woo them to work a better deal with their existing city while continuing 80 years of tradition.

Win #3 – And this is the trickiest of all. The clock is ticking on London’s 15 minutes of fame. As it stands now, we’ve proven that our existing facilities are worthy of international recognition – so much so that we were almost able to wrest away the prize of a Shriners Hospital from much bigger competition. But the key is to be able to build on that fame and entrench it into the minds of the masses.

It’s not enough to be respected – London needs to work to be revered. Respect means that those in the industry know what your city has to offer in your chosen field. London’s got that already – our hospital system is on par with any other in the country and, thanks to the University of Western Ontario and its research facilities, we’ve earned a solid name in the medical and research communities.

But reverence? That’s something difference. To be revered means that Joe (or Jean) Average knows who you are. Reverence means that perceived transportation issues – like those that allegedly helped to sink London’s bid – are a non-factor because you’ve got that name recognition to back it up. It’s all about how you market yourself.

Londoners are blessed and cursed by our self-importance. Internally, the city’s leadership believes The Forest City is a major player on the Canadian landscape – but externally, we’re really not much more than a spot on the map. Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver – they can get away on name recognition alone. London has to work at promoting itself as a haven for the medical community.

There’s room for smaller cities to make their mark in this nation. One needs to look no further than down the 401 to see how the Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge region has become an international star in future technologies and research, powered in large part by RIM.

London needs to market itself less for its forests and more for its forceps. The Shriners’ decision shouldn’t be lamented as a loss, but rather recognized as an opportunity. The city has stepped onto the national and international stages, the audiences are waiting – now it’s time to make others see what Londoners believe: that London is, and will continue to be, a legitimate player in the theatre of Canadian health.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Signs Point to Excess

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Signs, signs, everywhere a sign. With all due respect to The Five Man Electrical Band, kudos to the Green Party’s Monica Jarabek for taking steps to bring common sense into election campaigns and trying to do something about the proliferation of unnecessary campaign signs.

Jarabek has proposed that all the candidates in the London West riding agree to do something about the insidious overpopulation of election signs that dot the landscape each and every election campaign. Under her proposal, all the candidates will publicly agree to post election signs only on private property. It just makes too much sense not to work – which is probably why it won’t.

The fact that a candidate from a less-prominent party is making this suggestion actually makes it carry more weight. Jarabek and her cohorts would seem to have more to lose than the big boys and girls of the political spectrum with this proposal. A significant portion of these smaller parties’ road-side advertising comes from campaign signs on public property. But it appears Jarabek’s willing to sacrifice what’s best for her for what’s right – although the publicity this proposal has created is a welcome benefit, no doubt.

Think back over the past few election campaigns. How many times have you driven down the street and been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of campaign signs, dotting an open land space like a field of untamed dandelions? It’s not unusual to see a dozen or two signs for the same candidate sitting side by each, covering a formerly green area with a wash of blue, red, green, or yellow.

It’s a scene that repeats itself in every city across Canada, during every election. Municipal, provincial, federal – no matter what the campaign, the prevailing wisdom is that more is better.

Actually, the abundance of political signs actually serves as a rather appropriate metaphor for election campaigns in general. Volume outweighs individuality. We’re so accustomed to see intelligent debate devolve into a shouting contest that we’ve come to accept the same from our visual campaign materials. Where one sign would actually do the trick, by plastering the landscape with multiple versions, parties end up engaging in a laminated cardboard shouting match!

Jarabek’s proposal has one significant benefit for the voters of Canada. Simply put, if candidates choose – or are forced – to abstain from putting campaign signs on public property, then they’ll have to work hard to woo voters into believing in their cause enough to put a sign on their lawn. That means that the candidates will have to explain their position better to their constituents, and more people will be engaged in the political process.

In a way, it evens out the game. The smaller guys, like the Green Party and the NDP, will be able to compete, at least visually, on a more even playing field with the big boys. It’s the message and the ability of the candidate to sell it to constituents that will play a defining role in earning the right to advertise on a lawn. The depth of commitment to the riding will outweigh the depth of a Party’s wallet.

And, as a voter, a campaign sign on my neighbour’s lawn will mean more to me than a couple of dozen non-affiliated signs on a highway turn-off. When the signs are placed by actual voters, it can stimulate conversation and engage the average voter in the electoral process by encouraging discussion and debate of political views and candidate benefits.

There are a number of other benefits to this proposal as well. A sea of campaign signs can, in fact, pose a hazard to drivers and pedestrians alike, obstructing views and creating new blind spots. As well, there are the environmental and financial concerns that this overkill creates. By adopting Jarabek’s idea, we’d not only be reducing the amount of redundant campaign material that ends up in the trash, we’d help to reduce the exorbitant cost of elections. Those signs have to get paid for eventually – and it usually comes from the tax payers’ wallets.

But why just stop in London West? Why not make this a country-wide endeavour. What’s stopping the parties from either entering into a gentleman’s agreement to only put campaign signs on private property or even enacting legislation?

It’s an idea that makes sense. In fact, the writing’s on the wall – only the view’s been blocked by far too many signs. When it comes to the next election, let’s just hope that less really will be more.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

A Lack of Pioneering Vision

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Monday night’s meeting didn’t just see London City Council toss an extra $85,000 onto the pile that is the Fanshawe Pioneer Village – they managed to waste $300,000 by providing a brief stay of execution for the facility.

And hopefully it’ll be the last $300,000 wasted. It will be if Council has the guts to finally cut bait next year.

In a Utopian world, it’d be wonderful to support each and every artistic and historic venture that enriches the Forest City. However, the reality of the situation is that perhaps we’ve come to a time where we need to take a cold, hard look at what we have, and make the tough decisions required to maximize our return on our investment – and to stop chasing after a dream that will never come to fruition.

Now, before I get branded a cold-hearted right-winger who only looks at the bottom line, you should know that I’ve been on the left wing more often than Bobby Hull in his heyday! But what good is funding a service that people have shown, through their apathy, they don’t want.

The only time that the Pioneer Village arouses passion in the community is during the annual “Save the Village” scenarios. Where is this passion during the year? Can you show me where this vocal community that would hate to see such a valuable component of our community disappear has actually been backing up their words with their wallets? Perhaps if their support extended beyond the emotional to the financial, the Fanshawe Pioneer Village wouldn’t be trying to stave off the axe each and every year.

We’re not talking about a site that’s unique in Canada. Heck, I Googled “Pioneer Village” and had to wade through five pages before I even hit on a mention of Fanshawe Pioneer Village – and that was from a Free Press article! There are dozens of villages out there, so we’re not talking about eliminating the last of its kind.

And I propose we don’t totally eliminate it. We simply take a concerted look at what we have in London and try to maximize its impact.

London has more pressing needs than a Pioneer Village that doesn’t get support. It has a downtown that’s grip on survival is tenuous at best. I often walk the streets of Downtown London and see the empty storefronts, or the constantly changing vendors. We have the potential markets created by the John Labatt Centre’s events. We have a Market that needs to better market itself. And we have a rich history that many of our very own citizens know nothing about – much less care.

But, seeing as Easter’s just around the corner, what if we decide to put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak. What if we consolidate our efforts and make Downtown London the focal point of the city’s history, culture, and – dare I say it – future?

Tutankhamen’s tomb is no less valuable or interesting to people because it’s been moved from Egypt and has toured the world, so relocating a few artifacts from the outskirts of London to a centralized display isn’t sacrilegious. Why not conscript some of those empty storefronts on Dundas, or rent out some areas of Galleria London and turn Downtown London into a living, breathing celebration of everything that London was, is, and can be?

Why can’t we intersperse our city’s history amongst its present? Co-ordinate efforts between Museum London, the Public Library, and our archeological caretakers and give people a reason to visit downtown. In doing so, people will hopefully be attracted to the Core, will patronize its shops, and draw new investment to an area that sorely needs it.

Obviously the status quo isn’t working, and has not for many years in the case of Fanshawe Pioneer Village. Our city and its heritage is something of which we should be proud. But it’s hard to feel pride, when we don’t know enough about our past.

A co-ordinated, consolidated effort to create a downtown core that’s rich in history, vibrant in its present, and optimistic about its future should be worth more to the City than throwing away money at a model that doesn’t work.

And then the responsibility would fall upon the shoulders that deserve it – those of the people of London. If they don’t support something that’s been tailor-made to meet their needs, then we have no one to blame but ourselves for what we lose

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The $415,000 Question

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Another day, another City Hall fiasco. Unapproved renovation costs, sexual harassment issues, closed-door meetings, denials, double-talk, sniping – it seems one can’t wake up anymore and pick up a paper without reflexively cringing before seeing what’s next.

So what do we, as Londoners, do about it? That’s the $415,000 question, now isn’t it? For many years now Londoners have been willing to gripe about our elected officials, but when it comes down to that decisive moment, the status quo reigns supreme.

Name recognition seems to be the order of the day for London voters – last election saw all incumbents who ran re-elected. Voter apathy tops the list. In fact, just over 30% of eligible voters cast ballots last election. And who are among the worst offenders? London’s youth.

Whether it’s university students returning home from their studies, or high school grads preparing to take the next step in their lives, one of the fundamental responsibilities we have as a society – and as adults — is participation in the democratic process.

Of course, no one is actively going to get you to the polls. I’m not so far removed from that age to have forgotten how hollow “Get out to vote” messages can sound. In fact, those pseudo-hip messages specifically targeted to the youth demographic are either way off base or way too condescending.

So why should you go out and cast a vote on November 10? The pretentious answer is, “Because it’s your civic duty to do so.” But the real reason is that you can make a difference and help to shape this city the way you want it!

Stop and think about the power you – and when I say you, I mean youth as a block – hold for the upcoming election. The numbers can be in your favour! Look at the percentages we’re talking about here – only about one-third of eligible voters actually exercised their right to vote. Now, if the youth of this city – even conservatively saying 5,000 to 10,000 people — actually got involved in this process and voted for a candidate who met their needs that could have a significant impact on the final result.

Now I can hear the cry, “There’s nobody out there who cares what we think.” You know what? You’re probably right. And you know why? You don’t give them a reason to care.

As much as we’d like to live in a world where politicians have all of our best interests in mind, the fact of the matter it’s not that the squeaky wheel gets the grease –all the whining in the world won’t get you anywhere. It’s the squeaky wheel that actually has some weight behind it that will see results. They’re called interest groups because they actually can attract the interest of our city’s movers and shakers.

I’ve lived in this city for a number of years and all I’ve ever heard from this city’s youth is how backwards the city is, how there’s nothing for the youth, and a litany of things that are wrong with the city. I’ve yet to see anyone do anything about it.

Where’s the motivation for someone running for office to develop a position, or even address your needs? Why should they waste their breath on a group that’s not even going to get out and cast a ballot. However, I guarantee that if they knew that your vote could make a difference between election and obscurity, I’m sure they’d be more receptive to your concerns.

Sure it’s only May and it would seem too early to start thinking about elections, but that’s precisely the problem! Most people don’t think about elections, read what they see in the paper, then go cast a ballot – and hence the same-old, same-old council we keep getting.

Think of it as your summer project before you go back to school. We live in the electronic age, so send the candidates an email. Go see them when they’re stumping for votes. Call their offices. No matter what you do, get your voice heard and ask the questions that concern you! If you don’t get an answer, ask again. Find the candidate who addresses your concerns in a way you’re satisfied with. And don’t just stick with the “money” candidates – talk to the lesser lights, see what their ideas are.

This way, when Nov. 10 rolls around, you’ll know who – and what – you’re voting for. Maybe it will be the same-old candidate, or perhaps someone new will earn your vote. At least you’ll be making an informed decision.

And, hopefully, as voting day approaches the candidates themselves will know who they’re dealing with when it comes to plotting London’s future!

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Retail Freeze – It’s Cold Enough, Thanks

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

To think, just a little while ago there were discussions about a commercial land development freeze. It’s nice to see that Hyde Park’s heating up, but we’re certainly feeling the chill out in the South-Least!

Yes, those of us in the Pond Mills/Glen Cairn and surrounding areas can only shake our collective heads in disbelief as the city’s talking heads lament the saturation of market share in the Southwest and North part of the city, while our neck of the woods gets left out the discussion – again.

Our city planning and commercial development is totally out of whack, choosing to cater to the whims of the more affluent and trendy areas, than servicing regions that are woefully under-served and undervalued.

Southeast London is a wonderfully diverse region filled with people and families that span a myriad of social and cultural spectra. We feature a mix of well-to-do and not-so-well off. There are new families living close by those who have sown family roots in the area over a quarter-century ago.

Yet instead of appreciating our region, new developments – whether they’re cultural or economic – continually head to the same locations. So forgive us if, while you’re debating where to put yet another Wal-Mart or big box store, we come up with a few colourful suggestions as to where to stick it.

The argument can be made that the Southeast end of the city can rightly be called the gateway to London. With easy access to the 401 off of Highbury Ave (the old 126) the area appears to be ripe for exploitation. There’s an existing market clamouring for support, new developments such as Summerside that would relish the idea of local shopping convenience, and even smaller towns such as Dorchester whose residents would appreciate the shorter drive to retail opportunities.

Instead, we’re stuck with an eyesore of a retail space that’s a shopping centre in name only and that’s never given the area an opportunity to prove itself. The east end of Commissioners Road is a hit-and-miss retail environment with no firm anchor to which to tether. If those other regions of the city are too spoiled with riches to welcome a new retail development, then simply ride that gift horse to our neck of the woods – we’ll be glad to find it a home.

In addition to affluent families, the southeast end features a number of families requiring financial assistance. These families would relish the opportunity to have a worthwhile retail opportunity within walking distance. If our vaunted city planners cared to think outside the box a little, they’d see that any commercial development – whether it be a big box store, movie theatre, or even a large-name restaurant – would draw patrons from surrounding regions and stimulate economic growth and development in the area.

In other cities, large-scale retail operations like Costco, IKEA, and Sam’s Club prefer a location next to major highways. Save for the original Costco, all of our big box retailers have been placed in the less-accessible regions of our fair city. And yet an area just minutes from the highway remains neglected.

The concern for our community is that instead of being a place where people stay for generations, it is rapidly becoming just a stepping stone to other areas of the city. Instead of establishing roots, new families are setting up shop for a couple of years, only to move to other better-serviced areas.

The potential is there. New ownership at the Pond Mills Centre and a rezoning of the land on the South East corner of Commissioners and Highbury may mean that development is on its way.

It’s time to start treating the Southeast end of the city more like a gateway to London than its doormat. We need to find an answer to developmental tunnel vision — there’s so much more to London than just Westmount and Masonville.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved