What's Going On
History
Council  Reports
Balm Beach Info
Sample Affidavits
Deputations
Court Decisions
Contact Info
In The News
Links
FAQ
Correspondence Ardmore Beach Comm. Assoc.
Archive

Correspondence

GLOBAL RESOLUTIONS INC.
45 St. Nicholas Street, Toronto, Ontario M4Y 1W6 Tel 416 964 7497  Fax 416 925 8122
Email info@global-adr.com

April 8, 2004
File No. MAG-G-1007-00(SP)

Ms. Kathy Speers
c/o Save The Beaches Association
R. R. #1
Perkinsfield, Ontario
L0L 2J0

Dear Ms. Speers:

RE: BEACH ACCESS MEDIATION PROCESS

We acknowledge receipt and thank you for your letter of March 24,  2004. There are a number of areas we would like to address in response.

The Cease-fire Proposal

 Simply put, there are two opposing views in the Tiny community  with regard to beach access and use. One view holds that a person who holds title to a beach or part of a beach has the right to determine who can be on his or her property. The other view is that people  have a right to be on a beach irrespective of who may hold title  to that property. This second view, in other words, asserts that beaches are public. Each claims certainty of its rights and the correctness of its position, and believes the opposing view is wrong.  In the absence of a judicial ruling, neither will convince the other  of the extent of its rights and the limitations of the opposing  view. As a result, no individual is prepared to take any steps that  might be construed as giving up his or her perceived rights. In fact, each takes steps to assert his or her perceived rights out of fear that not doing so may mean he or she will lose such rights. This is what has causes most of the tension within the community, and has been an obstacle to moving forward in the mediation process.

 The cease-fire proposal offers a clear way around this obstacle.  It allows the parties to continue their beach by beach discussions  on what constitutes reasonable use and reasonable numbers of users  without concern that they are giving away any of their perceived  rights.

 Moreover, the cease-fire proposal comes with a safety net. If beach by beach discussions on what constitutes reasonable use and reasonable numbers of users are not successful, the cease-fire mechanism is terminated and no one will have compromised his or her perceived rights. As such, any characterization of the cease-fire as taking  away rights is misinformed and simply incorrect.

 We believe the cease-fire framework calls on the best qualities of the people of Tiny Township and should be given a chance.

Stewardship of the Beaches

 The settlement of access and use issues would only resolve half the problem. The ongoing stewardship of the beaches remains a critical  element of a sustainable resolution of beach access and use issues. It is a matter that is part and parcel of any beach by beach discussion  on what constitutes reasonable use and reasonable numbers of users.

 You indicated in your letter that you attended before the Tiny  Township Council with a “Draft Beach Management Proposal”. We have not received a copy of this document. It has not been tabled  within the mediation process. Presumably it addresses stewardship issues, which, as stated above, are critical to a sustainable resolution.  Without, however, resolving access issues this would seem to put  the cart before the horse. Unless and until the “rights”  issues are resolved, there will be little to no interest in addressing stewardship issues. This, you will recall, was the fatal flaw of the “Community Beach Statement” tabled by the Tiny Township  Council.

 Any proposal that does not attempt to resolve the opposing “rights” conflict fails to address the fundamental problem and source of  turmoil within the community, and, as such, cannot be considered as a sustainable framework for moving negotiations forward.

Representation of Stakeholder Interests

 Throughout the mediation process several groups and individuals,  including your group, have made representations on behalf of non-shore line interests. These other groups have included Tiny Residents Working Together, the Tiny Township Council, and beach associations comprised of both shoreline and non-shoreline residents. In addition,  several individuals who chose not to be associated with any group  communicated their views to us. Throughout the mediation process, the conflict over the “rights” issue has been the backdrop  of virtually all discussions. As a result, it has been in the context of that backdrop that your views and the views of other non-shoreline stakeholders have been manifest in the process throughout.

Activities during the Mediation Process

i) Complaints

 Throughout the mediation we have heard the kind of complaints you describe in your letter. We have also have received complaints  from shoreline owners concerning vandalism and provocative activities.  For example, you may recall that you yourself advised one beach  community about a possible threat to their property. Most if not  all of these activities are directly or indirectly connected to  people trying to assert their perceived “rights” with  respect to access. This highlights the necessity of the cease-fire  to the mediation process.

ii) Parking

 Our observation is that the community has struggled and continues to struggle with how to resolve parking issues. It is our understanding that public safety is the paramount concern. As you know, Tiny Township  Council formed a parking committee that tried to address the various  concerns throughout the community. A member of your executive served on that committee and no doubt understands, better than we ever  could, the challenges in connection with developing an equitable parking policy.

iii) Continuity of Participation

 You make reference in your letter to a 16-month period during which your group appeared to be shut out of the mediation process.  You may recall that when we first accepted this assignment a number  of stakeholders refused to meet with us. As a result, we spent a number of months working at having these stakeholders reconsider their role in the process. During this period, as we have explained  before, this was the focus of our attention. Without their participation  there would no mediation. In May 2002, in response to comments you  made in the media, we wrote to you inquiring as to whether or not you were continuing in the process. A few months later we received a letter from your counsel setting out your demands for re-entry to the process. You subsequently advised us that the letter misstated  your position. We are sure that you can appreciate how a reasonable  person reading that letter would conclude your group had withdrawn  from the process. At no time however has your group in any way been excluded or shut out of the mediation process by us.

The Goal of the Technical Sub-Committee

 In February 2004 a conference call was convened among the members of the technical sub-committee, which included your counsel. The  purpose of that call was to review the progress of the sub-committee  and discuss draft documents that participants were working on. At the end of the call, we were advised that your group would be providing  a proposal, in writing, for the sub-committee’s consideration  at a later date. The goal of course was to be in a position to eventually present a finished product to those stakeholders who participated  in the July 6, 2003 meeting. Given the complexity of the issues and to avoid misunderstanding and confusion, we understood we would  have to develop an effective strategy to properly present and communicate  whatever the final product of the sub-committee might be.

 You subsequently decided, without the consent of the Committee  and without advising it of your intended actions, to circulate incomplete working drafts in the community and make highly critical comments  in the media. As we stated in our one-hour telephone conference on March 11th, we do not understand how this assists the mediation process or sustains goodwill with the other stakeholders.

 In closing, we concur with your comments that all parties need  to show good faith. As we have stated in our interim reports, we  believe the overwhelming majority of Tiny residents are desirous of a “made in Tiny” solution.

Yours very truly,

GLOBAL RESOLUTIONS INC.

“Original signed by Paul Torrie” Paul Torrie,    Mediator      

 “Original signed by James McKenzie” James  McKenzie, Mediator

 



 

Membership Information

Download the membership form

Size 56 kb 


STB Petition

Download the STB Petition.

 Beach Users Link

Ontario  residents

Save The Beaches     2004 ©

What's Going On | History | Council  Reports | Contact Info | In The News
Links | FAQ | Correspondence

Privacy  Policy