Patios, Process, and Priorities: Getting Queen Street Right

mmavridis
2 days ago
5 min read

Updated: 22 hours ago

As Council prepares to vote on a proposed temporary patio program this Tuesday, it’s important to step back and look at the bigger picture.

This isn’t just about patios.

It’s about consistency, fairness, and whether we are making decisions that support the long-term success of Queen Street—or continuing down a path of short-term, reactive policymaking.

You Can’t Have It Both Ways

Over the past few weeks, Council has received emails from members of the public urging us not to support certain motions because they would create “new programs” and strain staff capacity.

That’s a valid concern.

But here’s where the inconsistency becomes clear:

Some of those same voices are now advocating for a new temporary patio program.

So the question needs to be asked:

Which is it?

We cannot say “no” to initiatives based on staff workload when it doesn’t align with a particular interest—

and then support a new program when it does.

That inconsistency doesn’t just affect Council decisions—it erodes trust in the process.

We Already Have a Plan—So Why Aren’t We Following It?

Temporary patios were introduced during COVID to support businesses during an unprecedented time.

That time has passed.

We are now in the middle of a comprehensive Queen Street Secondary Plan—an 18-month process designed to guide the future of Queen Street, including how public space is used.

So again, we need to ask:

Why now? What has changed?

If patios are something we want to explore long-term, then the appropriate place for that discussion is within that process—where it can be done properly, fairly, and with input from the entire community.

What the Motion Actually Says—and Why It Matters

If you read the motion closely, the limitations—and the unfairness—are written directly into it.

The motion permits patios:

Only within municipally owned parking spaces
Only directly in front of the establishment
With no encroachment beyond neighbouring businesses
And not within accessible parking spaces

In practical terms, that means:

Roughly one parking space per business
About 170 square feet
Approximately 8–12 seats

This is not a broad program.

It is a highly restricted, location-dependent benefit.

And it limits participation to a very small number of businesses—approximately 2 to 3 out of the 32 food and beverage establishments on Queen Street.

Fairness Isn’t Optional

This is where the proposal raises serious concerns.

We have businesses in this community that have already been required to go through the proper planning process—at significant cost.

Take The Irish Harp.

Because they do not have public parking spaces in front of their establishment, they won’t be able to participate in this “new temporary” program.

After the temporary patios program ended, they (the Irish Harp) were directed to pursue a permanent patio solution at the rear of their property through the formal planning process—

including approximately $146,000 in parking-in-lieu fees.

That is the standard. That is the rule.

And now, we are considering a “new” program that allows others to bypass that same level of process and cost—simply because they have access to a municipal parking space in front of their business.

So we need to ask:

How is that fair?

Who Gets Left Out—By Design

The structure of this motion doesn’t just limit participation—it excludes businesses outright.

For example, Stagecoach, which previously operated a temporary patio, would not qualify under this program due to:

Lack of a suitable parking space directly in front
The presence of an accessible parking space nearby

So this program:

Excludes some businesses entirely
Benefits others based solely on location
And ignores those who have already complied and invested

This isn’t an oversight.

It’s how the motion is written.

Unequal Rules, Unequal Outcomes

The motion outlines requirements such as:

Site plans and elevation drawings
Insurance and encroachment agreements
Compliance with safety, accessibility, and AGCO standards

And yet, these requirements have not been applied equally.

Some businesses have already:

Followed the full planning process
Paid substantial fees
Built compliant, permanent patios

Others are now being offered a pathway that is:

Faster
Less costly
And dependent only on geography

That is not consistency.

That is not fairness.

Public Space Has Value

We also need to talk about what’s being given up.

Downtown parking is not unlimited—it is a necessary public asset.

It supports:

Visitor access
Business turnover
Overall economic activity

When we convert parking spaces into patios, we are reallocating that value.

Not to the public—

But to private businesses, who directly benefit from that space.

And yet, this motion frames the financial approach as:

Cost recovery
Permit processing

Not value creation.

Not return to taxpayers.

So we need to ask:

Why aren’t we generating revenue from this?

Because while those spaces may not generate revenue 100% of the time for taxpayers—

They will generate consistent revenue for the businesses using them.

Supporting Queen Street the Right Way

Make no mistake—I am in favour of patios and the vibrancy they bring to our downtown.

But I am not in favour of a program that supports only a handful—2 to 3 out of 32 establishments.

That is not a strategy.

That is not fairness.

And that is not how we build a strong and sustainable downtown.

Recently, I asked one of the movers of this motion why they are not listening to businesses with existing patios—businesses that:

Pay property taxes
Pay rent year-round
And have invested in legal, compliant spaces

These business owners have clearly stated that this program creates an unfair advantage.

The response?

That they are “being selfish because they already have a legal patio.”

I’ll let that speak for itself.

Representation, Trust, and Reality

Since raising these concerns, I have been personally attacked, with claims that I have a vested interest.

Let me be clear.

What I have are local business owners reaching out directly to me with their concerns.

What I don’t have is the trust of some of my fellow councillors—that when I bring these concerns forward, they are seen as what they are: input from residents that deserve representation.

What I do have now is the awareness that some councillors will play politics to support only certain voices.

That’s why I’ve begun encouraging anyone who reaches out to me to also contact all members of Council—because every taxpayer deserves to be heard, not just a select few.

What I don’t have is confidence that this motion aligns with our strategic plan—or that it serves the best interest of all taxpayers.

Final Thought

This decision isn’t about being for or against patios.

It’s about whether we: