Ah, the patios

looking at this strictly through a governance, fairness, and fiduciary lens—

1. Anchor the decision in principles first, not personalities

Before debating numbers

• Fairness to all businesses (not just legacy or COVID-era participants)

• Protection of taxpayer-funded revenues (parking offsets)

• Consistency with permanent patio operators who already pay rent + taxes year-round

• Administrative feasibility (staff capacity and cost)

• Future alignment with the Queen/Picton Master Plan

Once those principles are set, many of the proposed compromises naturally fall away.

2. Treat parking spaces as public assets, not business entitlements

Staff’s ~$36,000 per space valuation wasn’t arbitrary—it was grounded in lost parking revenue, which directly offsets taxpayer costs.

Given that:

• A counter-offer of $7,000 per season represents a subsidy, not a compromise

• Especially when:

  
  

  • The patios are exclusive-use

  • The businesses keep 100% of the revenue

  • Removal in off-season was refused

• My position:

If a business wants to lease a public parking space below market value, it must either:

• Accept seasonal removal, or

• Participate in a rotational / shared program open to all eligible operators

If neither condition is acceptable, the lease does not meet the public-interest test.

3. Reject the “COVID-only” eligibility argument

I was very firm here.

The argument that patios should only be offered to those who participated during COVID:

• No longer meets an equity or emergency rationale

• Actively disadvantages the other 30+ food establishments

• Creates a two-tier business environment on Queen/Picton

Recommendation I made:

If patios exist on public land, they must be available through a transparent, competitive, and equal-access framework.

Anything else exposes the Town to reputational and legal risk.

4. Respect staff capacity and cost realities

Staff clearly signaled:

• The work required to do this properly

• The need for:

  
  

  • Surveys

  • Planning analysis

  • Enforcement framework

  • Additional staffing

  
  

• A non-trivial cost to accelerate it

In the final year of term, I agreed with staff’s professional advice and said:

“If Council is not prepared to fund and resource this fully, we should not ask staff to rush a half-measure.”

That is responsible governance.

5. Use permanent patio data as the fairness benchmark

The rent and tax figures you shared are critical—and often ignored in public debate:

• $29k–$32k monthly rent

• ~$50k–$56k annual property taxes

• Paid 12 months a year, regardless of season or weather

Against that backdrop:

• A seasonal fee for exclusive public land use is indefensible

• Especially when permanent operators are effectively subsidizing Town services year-round

  
  

6. The decision I would ultimately supported

Given everything:

✔️ Allow staff to pause

✔️ Defer the issue to the Queen/Picton Master Plan

✔️ Avoid creating an inequitable, underpriced, staff-intensive program in the final year

✔️ Maintain fairness for permanent operators and taxpayers

✔️ Preserve optionality for a proper, town-wide patio strategy later

That is not “killing patios.”

That is refusing to rush a flawed policy.