03 Mar Spirited debate conclusion
For now, the last word on Spirit Place (previous instalments here and here) will go to Jeff Scott, pediatrician, Willow Street resident, St. John’s Church parishioner, and a guy I admire, having witnessed his courage and grace under pressure when we worked together to get the Sydney Tar Ponds cleaned up.
As is often is the case in controversy, both parties are crying foul. The opponents of the church development feel victimized by the “holier than thou, social justice, inclusive ‘nonsense’” and fear they will “bear the burden of living with the impact of this vast structure because St. John’s United Church can-not afford to build what they want”.
On the other hand, church volunteers and staff have been hurt and affronted by accusations of creating “smokescreens” and as you said yourself, “starting a fire at one end of Main Street, so no one will no-tice them robbing a bank at the other”. One opponent was heard to say the church was “raping” the neighbourhood. Good god. (Oops, was that a churchy turn of phrase perhaps not to your taste, Parker?)
We are a church congregation! Volunteers! Goody Two-Shoes Do-Gooders, as you yourself state. Our intention is certainly not to mislead or smear opponents and never was. The intention of the proposal is to provide a future for the congregation on our property and at the same time, offer needed seniors’ housing in keeping with the character of the work we have done and want to continue. We are within our rights to follow the city guidelines in doing so. Opponents are within their rights to state their rea-sons for opposition.
Some clarification: The housing will be open to the GBLT community because we as a congregation are open and inclusive of all. And yes, there is evidence that senior GBLT community members feel discrimination in current options. The church did not go looking for media attention. Journalists came to us interested in the GBLT aspect of the project, because dare I say, it’s the sexiest angle with the most novelty and interest to readers.
Like opponents, St. John’s United wants Council to make their decisions based on the merits of the project and on the facts, in particular the facts concerning the size and impact of the building. We know this is the root of the concern for opponents, most of whom live closest to the building. It will impact them more than the current building does now, no question.
I understand that everyone has varying opinions on the definition of “vast” and “massive.” I am pleased that you have stated that you have not yet made up your mind about the proposal. From our experience working together in Sydney, I know that you are sensitive to how misconceptions can arise by relying only on media reports and submitted comments. As a local resident with an inquiring mind who lives within four blocks of the church site, I would hope you would want to learn as much as possible about the project. I know that members of St. John’s Implementation Team would be pleased to meet with you to give you the opportunity to review the architectural plans, to hear how the project evolved and to provide as much objective information as possible. This will I expect allow you to make your own determination objectively, in the same way we expect City Council and staff will.