After a raucous, rambling, and ultimately repetitive seven-hour session, Toronto City Council voted 31–12 to not designate U of T’s Back Campus as a heritage site.
The debate was influenced from the outset by a staff report, released today, which recommended that the City not grant Back Campus heritage designation. Staff originally recommended that the City request a report on the impact of the field after five years. However, a request made over lunch by U of T representatives convinced Councilor Mark Grimes to submit a successful amendment that changed the five years to 10. The request is not binding.
Opponents of the heritage designation were out in force, with Varsity athletes, Olympians, and Paralympians all there to show their support. Wearing Varsity athletic wear, the group of over fifty people applauded those Councilors who opposed the designation of Back Campus as a heritage site.
John Barrett, men’s Varsity Volleyball coach said he was there because he thinks that the turf will increase intramural playing time: “I think it’s of huge benefit to U of T and the students.”
On the other side of the debate, executives from the Graduate Students’ Union and Arts and Science Students’ Union were in attendance. There were far more people pro-turf than pro-heritage, although the heritage advocates were bolstered by the arrival of former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson who received a standing ovation upon being introduced.
Several student union executives complained about the last-minute time change as reason why pro turf advocates vastly outnumbered them. The back campus vote was scheduled for 9.30 am this morning at the request of U of T, with the time being finalized on Tuesday.
U of T has pulled out all the stops in lobbying Councilors, both publicly and in private over the past few days. This morning, David Naylor wrote to Council urging them not to designate back campus as a heritage site. In recent days, VP Operations Scott Mabury publicly speculated that U of T would seek damages in excess of $10 million if City Council approved the heritage designation. Yesterday, Mabury showed Back Campus to media outlets, demonstrating the poor condition of the field.
Councillor Doug Ford was vocally supportive of the development proposal on the Council floor. As he walked past students sitting in the stands he pointed and repeatedly whispered: “it’s about the students.”
A petition that started three days ago by Canadian field hockey Olympian Scott Sandison had over two thousand signatures as the vote took place. Another petition, started more than four months ago, asked City Council to designate Back Campus a heritage site. It had more then 5000 signatures going into the Council vote, and was formally presented to Council by Adam Vaughan.
Many Councillors shared fond memories of their time at U of T, including anecdotes of playing sports on Back Campus. Councillor Vaughan was the sole voice advocating a heritage designation. Vaughan cited intramural athletes, student unions, and many alumni as supporters. Vaughan argued that the city did not do an adequate job consulting the community, instead choosing to ignore them, leaving little choice but to raise the issue at Council.
“We are here doing our duty because the university Governing Council did not do theirs’,” he said.
Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday, who supports the planned development, agreed that this matter should not have come before Council. “It’s a fight in the family up at the university and that’s where it should be settled.”
Councillors spent well over an hour asking staff questions. Throughout the questions, City Manager Joseph Pennachetti warned of negative effects on international relations, potential for legal claims, and financial implications if Council were to have voted to designate Back Campus a heritage site. “This is a provincially approved and U of T approved project…if it does not go ahead as planned there will be significant ramifications for Pan Am and for Toronto’s reputation.”
Graduate Students’ Union executive Brad Evoy said he was “disappointed by the city planner’s report,” which he described as rushed. Evoy was also concerned about the research done by Councillors and staff saying, “It seemed they hadn’t seen construction reports from U of T.
The approved plan calls on U of T to conduct a review into any potential detrimental impacts caused by the changes to the field, and report on their finding in ten years time.