Private food, public parks

by Matthew Burrows on May 11th, 2006 at 9:00 AM

1 of 1 2 of 1

Adam Smith has been struck by a sense of déjíƒ vu.

For three years, the waterfront advocate and Kitsilano Point resident fought against the Watermark Restaurant across from his Arbutus Street home. Smith said he believed the sheer scale of the 17,500-square-foot site was not appropriate use of parkland. He lost the battle, and the $7-million facility””operated by Barnett Family Holdings Inc. in a lease agreement lasting 20 years””opened its doors in July 2005.

Smith told the Georgia Straight he is aware the board of parks and recreation had commissioned a parks “concession strategy study” that once again opens up debate on the use of pristine waterfront.

“I'm not opposed to the park board generating its own revenue, but when it comes at the expense of the parks that are under their mandate, that's wrong,” Smith said. “I don't think that's supported by the public.”

The NPA–dominated board (with COPE commissioner Spencer Herbert opposed) passed staff recommendations at the busy May 1 park-board meeting at Strathcona Community Centre. The concessions study, conducted by the JF Group and released on April 13, looks at assessing the way food-and-beverage service is delivered in the park board–operated concessions in the city. It could lead to a new privately owned restaurant on English Bay and at other beaches.

The staff report flags the foot of Denman Street as “the best opportunity for concession redevelopment” . It also calls for an expression of interest this fall over ways to redevelop the trailer concession at the Aquarium Plaza, which, the report notes, is the park board's “third highest producer but is progressively losing market share to the Aquarium food services” .

Placing a restaurant in a park produces plenty of profits, not to mention neighbourhood controversy

> After receiving a December 19, 2003, staff report, the COPE–controlled park board (current COPE commissioner Loretta Woodcock was opposed) voted in favour of increasing the park-board contribution to the Kits Beach Restaurant Project washroom/lifeguard-tower facility to $800,000 from $500,000. It did this at the January 12, 2004, board meeting.

> There were already countless complaints about the Kits Beach project (violation of noise bylaw, lack of public consultation, public park trust violated), but one citizen told the board the existing facilities (prior to Watermark Restaurant construction) were a disgrace.

> In 2003, Save Our Waterfront Parks Society unsuccessfully filed a lawsuit in the B.C. Supreme Court, claiming the park board was in breach of appropriate land use, based on the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway allegedly gave the land as a gift in 1909.

> Watermark Restaurant gross sales in its first five months: almost $2 million.

> Amount returned to park board after paying for washrooms: $86,000.

> Top priority outlined in April 2006 Concession Strategy Study: “Pursue lease agreement for English Bay” .

> Net revenue at Second Beach refreshment booth in 2005: $173,896

> Net revenue at Spanish Banks refreshment booth in 2005: $106,572

> Net revenue at Sunset Beach refreshment booth in 2005: $51,155

Sources: Minutes of January 12, 2004, park-board meeting; April 2006 Concession Strategy Study; Board of Parks and Recreation Concession Summary 2003-2005.

Critics dismiss the board vote to pursue these options as an endorsement of creeping privatization of public beach and park space. During the board meeting, Herbert said he was worried about the “McDonaldization” of parkland. CUPE research representative Blair Redlin told the commissioners he was “puzzled” that the park board seemed to be “providing assistance to private capital” .

NPA commissioner Marty Zlotnik disagreed.

“I don't think the issue of privatization is what we're talking about here,” he said. “We'd love to be less involved. As a park board, I believe we are not so comfortable being involved in the food-and-beverage business.”

Speaking by phone on May 8, Smith told the Straight he “agreed” in principle with outsourcing of certain services but worries about the sensitive nature of parkland use after his experience of Watermark.

“You don't need to construct 20,000-square-foot concrete-and-steel buildings that detract from the settings and effectively give developers priority over the public demand for preservation of natural space,” he said. “Watermark from inside looking out is, no doubt, stunning, but that view predated the building and it's not a result of the building. But if you stand behind the building and get the perspective that 80 to 90 percent of the people in the park have, you'll see it's a big ugly building which some call stunning, but from some angles it has all the charm of a fish-packing plant.”

In a phone call to the Straight on May 9, developer Peter Barnett confirmed he also attended the Strathcona meeting but would not confirm any interest in pushing for Watermark II at English Bay.

“Yes, we were at the Strathcona Community Centre parks-board meeting,” Barnett said. “We had an interest in seeing in what direction the parks board were going.”

Does Barnett intend to put in an offer?

“Not necessarily, but we were interested in what sort of direction the parks board were heading,” Barnett replied. “We went to get the feel of what was happening and the feel of the public.”

Citywide net revenues from all concessions in 2005 were $514,390, up from $466,318 in 2004.