Act 2 of washroom farce

Public washrooms for Victoria Park may not be built until next year after four councillors — John Gazzola, Zyg Janecki, Yvonne Fernandes and Scott Davey — rejected a construction plan scheduled to start this month.

By scrapping washroom plans at David and Jubilee, I think the opposition has helped torpedo the future of The Boathouse bar-restaurant. A priority for prospective Boathouse operators is to have separate public washrooms.

Opposition also means Kitchener has probably missed out on a $200,000 grant offered by the federal government toward the $565,000 cost of the washrooms. And while that pricetag seems high, it can be measured against two other washrooms built several years ago in other Kitchener parks that, including inflation, would currently cost  $550,000 – $586,000

Now, taxpayers are paying for the time and expense involved in having staff deal with a near-impossible task — create washrooms for under $400,000 in the city’s flagship, heritage park. If we do that, I’m convinced we will end up with an ugly, concrete-block bunker soon to be covered with graffiti.

My  support for the project has to do with the fact  numerous people from our community and other parts of the city attended public meetings where they said they want washrooms located at David and Jubilee.

No matter what happens, I will continue to push for park washrooms, do everything possible to get that federal $200,000 and involve the public in selecting the location of any building.

Meanwhile, the ongoing farce continues at council Monday evening and you’re welcome to attend.

This entry was posted in Ward News and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Act 2 of washroom farce

  1. John Nuernberger says:

    I understand the concerns about fiscal responsibility but I do not understand why the option of modifying the boathouse doesn’t appear to be an option. My understanding was that the previous tenant made renovations impossible, but with no tenant currently occupying the space, why is this not being looked at again? It appears an obvious conclusion to a debate that shouldn’t have been had in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s