I see Councillors are getting an earful on the “old” mall parking lot. (see The Packet "Pot Holes Persist Feb 28/2013 ) The Town and the Mall owners have been at loggerheads for what seems like forever pointing fingers of blame at one another as absolutely nothing gets done to clean up what has become a decrepit part of Clarenville.
From the mall owner's/tenant's point of view, the Town owns the lot and IT is clearly the one responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the lot. (This is thanks to an omission in the original 1960’s era development agreement that neglected to pass the ownership of the lot to the mall owners within a specified length of time)
From the Town’s point of view, it wants to be rid of the lot and the associated liability. And their stand has a lot of merit from a taxpayer's point of view. As long as the Town is forced to take care of the lot the owners & tenants are receiving an effective subsidy on the backs of taxpayers that other stores simply do not receive. It is, for the Town, an unacceptable situation.
When the old stadium was in operation the Town had an excuse to own the lot (and pay part of the upkeep). Now that rationale is gone and we find ourselves in the middle of a game of chicken that has each side sniping at the other, while nothing gets done.
The impasse has dragged for years – and it will continue for many more if the same tact continues to be taken. This impasse is even more assured, considering that municipal elections are just a few months off and it can be passed off as someone else’s problem to deal with. Each side knows that and that is why we are seeing the saber rattling now.
What’s in the best interest of the Mall and citizens of the Town?
The issues surrounding that mall stretch much further than the condition of the parking lot – the mall space itself, arguably the best retail location in Clarenville, is a relic of the 1970’s. If you compare the above pictures the mall pretty much looks the same now as it did then. (with some cosmetic changes to some stores) essentially the building has not changed – but people have.
Contrary to comments in the new article in the Packet, our town is attracting more and younger people – our Median age is 41 and with new people moving into town, at the current rate ,that age will stay low. This new generation of residents will not be interested in going back in time to visit these stores. True, older residents like the Mall but, like it or not, the clock is ticking for them. The numbers of those who are used to the old mall and who grew older with that mall are declining. If the owners choose not to modernize or rebuild the fate of the old mall and the stores in it are truly sealed.
What to do to get around the impasse? - Hire a Mediator
An investment in the future of the mall needs to be made for Clarenville’s sake. As long as the owners own a mall without a parking lot that investment cannot and will not happen. From an economic development point of view this eyesore needs to be dealt with. From a mall owners/tenants point of view an immediate solution means nothing less than survival.
So, there is a vested interest for both sides to resolve this; they just need to recognize it. It is essential that the sides agree to something simple first: to hire a mediator (the Town could even offer to foot the bill for this). With the level of animosity and wishy-washiness that exists, a mediator is an essential ingredient to effectively work towards a solution that would bring both sides together in a less politically charged environment.
It's in our best interest as a community and as taxpayers to look forward to a solution.
pt
Comments
Post a Comment