Colborne’s South Side: Myth vs. Fact

Myth: The south side fell victim to neglect and disrepair. Building code standards for fire and safety were not upheld, and a general blight fell over the south side, detracting from the advances made in urban renewal by the municipal government for the surrounding area.

Fact: According to a recent news report, almost all of the bylaw and property standards citations issued against the owners concerned exterior conditions, and none for safety and fire code infractions.

The blight and disrepair of the south side was the result of a three pronged assault on the private commerce and commercial development of the downtown by the city government.

1. Taxes, regulations and bylaws artificially inflated the costs of maintenance, repair and created disincentives to capital investment.

2. Previous boondoggles in the core were already taking their toll in the downtown. The vast amount of funds and infrastructure for the former Icomm Center (now a government run gambling parlor), the closing of market street to Colborne at a key intersection, combined with millions in structural (roads, utilities etc.) and direct subsidies to development in the north end.

2. Once the paralysis of the south side was in place, the city planners were only getting started. Then they decided to Corral the south side landlords and business into an "improvement district" which would utilize the immense brain power of city council and its pool of loyal consultants, and the cash invested by the property owners. However, city planner's stupid ideas are less likely to draw private investment without funding guarantees; another bright idea was moved to the back burner.

3. So the various businesses and landlords forged ahead on their own. Much of the south side was adjusting to the commercial losses and transitioning to a residential district. Plans were put in place to convert many of the former shop fronts to street level rental housing for low income families and individuals (called "slums" when they are privately run, and "social housing" when they are government run). The activity of Colborne, as Jane Jacobs would put it, and the neighborhood would be monitored by the people who lived there (horrors!). Again, the city planners became incontinent at the thought of an uncoordinated, unplanned community right smack where their bureaucratic wisdom was needed the most, so existing bylaws were amended and altered to prohibit these changes, which further backfired for two reasons: First, some permissions for mixed use alterations were grandfathered in, and the changes that could be enforced only drove vacancy rates up higher. The incompetence of the government had turned the south side into an urban wasteland, so city council capitalized on the growing frustration and demands that they "do something", and quickly signed the Memorandum of Understanding to justify the seizure of this vast stretch of nominally private land once and for all. Now in city hands, it could be destroyed literally, as well as economically.