Property owners will be fined if offending marks aren't removed promptly

Posted By MARLENE BERGSMA , STANDARD STAFF

Posted 14 days ago

St. Catharines' get-tough stance on graffiti has been approved.

City councillors voted unanimously Monday night to require that graffiti tags be removed from private property within five days of being reported, and be reported within three days of being tagged, or the owners will face fines.

Property owners who report in three days can have half the cost of the removal covered by the city, up to $300, with the option of applying for more assistance for bigger jobs. Owners who don't remove graffiti can be issued $150 tickets, or fined up to $5,000.

But councillors said the graffiti bylaw is not meant to punish victims.

The city wants to eradicate graffiti completely, said Merritton Coun. Jeff Burch, and the best way to do that is to act swiftly to remove the vandalism.

He said the removal requirements are only one of many tactics the city is using to get rid of graffiti. It is pledging to clean graffiti on its own property within 48 hours, participate in education programs, and work with other groups such as the green committee, which is using plants to deter vandals.

St. George's Coun. Greg Washuta said the reporting requirement will help police nab graffiti vandals.

He said the city must act because relying on other levels of government hasn't solved the graffiti problem. "This city is under siege," Washuta said. "But the fact is, after you paint over it a few times the vandal moves to someplace else, and graffiti does not fester in one location."

The graffiti bylaw was supported by the St. Catharines-Thorold Chamber of Commerce, with president Steve Cook telling councillors that tackling the problem is "an important component of the aesthetics of our city." He said the chamber applauds the assistance being offered to property owners.

But Dalemere Crescent resident Kevin Hodges cautioned against the bylaw, saying the teenage vandal who did $8,000 worth of damage to a wall in his neighbourhood in 2005 was quickly arrested and eventually sentenced to clean the wall.

If the neighbours had paid for the cleanup under the terms of the new bylaw, it would have cost them nearly $1,000 each, Hodges said. Instead, the vandal and his father spent two weeks repairing the damage he had done.

The city's bylaw will further penalize the victims who would be forced to "pay for someone else's vandalism," Hodges said.

Assistant city solicitor Denis Squires said very few graffiti vandals are actually caught, and even when they are, the city has no power to force them to make restitution.

Squires said most property owners who don't clean up the graffiti will be issued a $150 ticket. Only absentee landlords who fail to take any interest in their properties are facing bigger fines, Squires said.

The city budgeted $65,000 last year for graffiti removal.

Posted By By TIFFANY MAYER

Posted 5 days ago

It was supposed to be a bylaw to crack down on absentee landlords and student housing issues.

But, from Mayor Henry D'Angela's perspective, Thorold's draft rental-unit licensing bylaw has morphed into something else entirely.

That's why D'Angela won't support the proposed rules that many Thorold landlords say are akin to a dictatorship.

"I believe stronger enforcement of (existing) bylaws can achieve the results our citizens are looking for," D'Angela said. "A licensing system will become a bureaucratic nightmare with administration and enforcement."

D'Angela may not be the only councillor who feels that way. Coun. Shawn Wilson echoed D'Angela at an impromptu general committee meeting Tuesday, held to discuss the proposed bylaw and resident reaction to it at a heated public meeting in October.

"We are so far beyond student housing at this point," Wilson said. "It may fix up some houses along the way, but it won't curb rowdyism or parking issues. It's just going to make residents livid."

The bylaw, the creation of which D'Angela and members of the city's Town and Gown committee lobbied for last year to alleviate problems with unkempt student housing, proposes a $300 fee to license all of the roughly 2,200 rental units in Thorold. That would enable the creation of a database of rental units and make it easier for fire and bylaw officials to inspect properties, ensuring they are up to snuff with provincial and city rules.

It would also mandate unit features, such as room sizes and ceiling heights.

Chief building official Jeff Menard noted many of the rules outlined in the draft bylaw are taken from existing provincial building and fire codes.

But no residents spoke in favour of the proposed rules in October, rather they objected to the cost, the required criminal record search of landlords, the ability of the city to enforce the bylaw and the feeling that the code went above provincially legislated standards.

"There was, of course, the overriding concern about whether there should be a bylaw," Sara Premi, city solicitor, told council Tuesday.

Councillors also expressed concern about the likelihood of getting landlords to even register their properties if the bylaw becomes reality.

"We don't know who has houses out there being rented. We don't know who the renter is. We don't have that contact with people," Coun. Mike Charron said.

Coun. Jonathan LePera worried that if the bylaw was implemented as is, council would eventually be pressured to flip-flop on its decision and reconsider the rules. It's currently happening with the city's clean-yards bylaw, which has angered some residents who feel it's unfair.

"I don't want to revisit this bylaw," LePera said. "I want to make it so it stands."

Citing what other municipalities are doing, Premi said the City of London appears to be backing away from a proposed rental-unit bylaw. Instead, it's considering a rental property registry and enhancing existing property standards bylaws to deal with rental housing issues.

Keen to find an alternative, D'Angela rhymed off existing city bylaws that could be used to curb the problems with rental properties. Among them, the property standards bylaw, zoning rules and the clean-yards criteria.

After more than an hour of discussion, council directed staff to look into potential alternatives to the proposed bylaw and their ease of implementation, including what, if any, additional bylaw officials would need to be hired for effective enforcement.

Council hopes to have the information in time for the next public meeting regarding the bylaw on Jan. 28. Barring that, D'Angela suggested turning the forum into a public education event. That will give landlords and renters the chance to ask fire and building officials what their responsibilities are to ensure safe living conditions.

Council will decide the meeting's format early next month.

"One thing that came out of the public meeting (in October) is we need to work on that (public education)," D'Angela said.

Hearing wraps up after 71 days

Posted By MARLENE BERGSMA, STANDARD STAFF

It's over.

But after 71 days of hearings held over the course of 21 weeks, and 296 exhibits submitted as evidence contained in more than 40 boxes of documents, there's no hope the answer on the fate of the Port Place tower will be found under the Christmas tree.

As the snow began to fall outside St. Catharines city hall windows Wednesday afternoon, Ontario Municipal Board hearing chair Susan Campbell said she would make her decision as quickly as possible. But the soonest her answer will be available is late January.

"I will do my best to get this done as quickly as possible, but let's be realistic here," she said at the hearing.

"Don't be checking your e-mail regularly until the latter part of January."

Port Dalhousie Vitalization Corp. lawyer Mark Noskiewicz, who wrapped up the hearing with his responses to the arguments made by his opponents, thanked Campbell for her patience and good humour.

Campbell laughed.

"I hope I wasn't too hard on anybody, but if I was, whatever," she said with a mischievous grin, flipping her palms up in a gesture of dismissal.

Campbell, who has presided over the hearings with attentiveness and wit, reminded participants and spectators that her decision -- when it comes -- will be all or nothing.

"You heard what I said about me redesigning the project," she said, interrupting Noskiewicz's comments on whether the Port Mansion should be saved. "All of these (alternatives) would require me redesigning the project, and I am not doing that. I think everyone has understood from Day One that you are not going to see some weird thing designed by me."

Earlier in the week, Campbell hinted she doesn't accept that relatively modern buildings -- such as the former Erskine's Pharmacy or the former hydro building (now housing the Rum Jungle) -- are heritage buildings.

While Jane Pepino, lawyer for anti-tower citizens group PROUD (Port Realizing Our Unique Distinction), was trying to argue that buildings constructed after 1950 might still be considered heritage buildings, Campbell interrupted her to say: "Ms. Pepino, just to put it to bed, in my view, they (Erskine's Pharmacy and hydro building) are not, by definition, heritage buildings."

They could be considered part of Port's heritage fabric, she acknowledged, but they are not heritage buildings.

Noskiewicz devoted much of his argument Wednesday refuting Pepino's argument that heritage preservation should trump revitalization.

Noskiewicz said heritage and revitalization are equally balanced.

Besides, PDVC's proposal has always sought to conserve Port Dalhousie's "heritage values, attributes and character," he said, and the development represents "good heritage planning."

He urged Campbell to uphold city council's June 2006 decision to approve the development, saying the city was relying on an "inclusive" public process and the pro-tower advice of Paul Chapman, "the highly experienced and qualified" city planner.

After the hearing wrapped up, PROUD spokesman Carlos Garcia said he hopes the development will be rejected.

"We can't guarantee or predict what the outcome will be, but we feel very confident that we, and Jane Pepino, put forward a very strong case," Garcia said.

Garcia said PROUD expected that fighting the appeal would cost the group $300,000, but despite the generosity of Pepino and the expert witnesses PROUD hired, the case will cost "significantly more."

PDVC partner Dan Raseta, who has attended most of the hearing, said the process has cost PDVC "millions" of dollars.

Raseta said PDVC president Eric Moog, who was seriously injured in a boating crash in August 2007, and who has not attended any of the hearings, is still recovering in Toronto.

PDVC's third partner, Ralph Terrio, who has also not attended any of the hearings, was the only PDVC spokesman to formally comment.

Terrio said he skipped the hearings because they were too nerve-racking.

"My nerves can't take it. It makes me a nervous wreck," Terrio said in a phone interview after the hearing ended.

Several PDVC supporters expressed optimism about the outcome, but Terrio was more cautious.

"I wish I could have the same feeling, but I can't. It's all in one person's hands," he said. "I hear everybody did a good job of presenting the case but there is no way of knowing."

Garcia said whatever the decision is, it will be precedent-setting.

"There are 92 heritage districts in Ontario and all, except one, are low-rise," he said. A tower has never been built in a heritage district before, he said.

Terrio said his first question to Noskiewicz after the hearing ended was "what are our chances?"

"He said, 'You have a chance, but there are no guarantees.' "