Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Edmonton's City Market Downtown needs community representation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Edmonton's City Market Downtown needs community representation

    "The City Market Downtown has called a Special Meeting to change the organization’s bylaws so that vendors have complete control over the affairs of the market, whereas previously a healthy mix of vendor and community representation has been required. I believe this is an unfortunate and reactive turn of events that will prevent the City Market from growing and achieving success in the future. The City Market is successful presently because of the partnership that exists between vendors, consumers, residents, businesses, and the City of Edmonton, and I would like to see that partnership remain and become even stronger. I’m sharing this in the hopes that more Edmontonians will look at the City Market not just as a great place to shop at on Saturday, but also as an integral part of our downtown and of the city we all want Edmonton to be."

    http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2012/05/10/...epresentation/
    www.decl.org

  • #2
    Metro News story - http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/21...ing-structure/
    www.decl.org

    Comment


    • #3
      Good god people, do not screw this up and have clearer heads prevail.


      Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

      Comment


      • #4
        You know what I can really see the Vendors Point of view.

        They are the ones responsible for the majority of the costs, and as such they should have a majority of the voice.

        Who on 104th street is looking to get onto Icon's board (assuming they don't own a suite), or wants to have a vote on how they operate Icon's tower, or commercial spaces, or the future paint colour of the balconies etc??

        That is not to say that I don't understand the concerns of the residents or the business owners on 104th.

        Comment


        • #5
          ^There's more to it than that. The City has invested quite a bit of money into making that street what it is and helping pay for the initial costs of moving the market to that location. There has been a lot of good will by both the surrounding businesses and residents to foster the success of the market - even at a loss to their own business. These proposed bylaw changes send a bad signal to everyone that the market doesn't want to work with anyone, and are not in the spirit of cooperation that is necessary to make a market on 104 Street successful in the future. Everyone needs to get along, there is no choice - including the market with its neighbours.
          www.decl.org

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kjh
            Who on 104th street is looking to get onto Icon's board (assuming they don't own a suite), or wants to have a vote on how they operate Icon's tower, or commercial spaces, or the future paint colour of the balconies etc??
            The market is a temporary guest one day a week, several months a year in that community. The residents and businesses live and operate there year round. Completely cutting them out of the decision making process for the market is not a viable solution. The comments from Dieter Kuhlmann in that article are extremely concerning. If the community cannot participate and influence the decision making process when things happen that are not in it's interest, the result may well be the market being moved or closed. How is that in the interests of the vendors?
            Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 11-05-2012, 10:35 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
              Originally posted by kjh
              Who on 104th street is looking to get onto Icon's board (assuming they don't own a suite), or wants to have a vote on how they operate Icon's tower, or commercial spaces, or the future paint colour of the balconies etc??
              The market is a temporary guest one day a week, several months a year in that community. The residents and businesses live and operate there year round. Completely cutting them out of the decision making process for the market is not a viable solution. The comments from Dieter Kuhlmann in that article are extremely concerning. If the community cannot participate and influence the decision making process when things happen that are not in it's interest, the result may well be the market being moved or closed. How is that in the interests of the vendors?
              The market leases the space, meaning that they are a temporary tenant, not a guest.

              From what I understand the market is not cutting the community out of the decision making process, the community can buy a non voting share, and go to the meetings and make presentations and debate to their hearts content. However when the decision time comes the voting shares are held by those who pay to implement the decision.

              The market forces acting on the market still exist. I agree with you entirely. The Vendors have a huge incentive to maintain a good relationship with the community and businesses. Just like you have a huge incentive to maintain a good relationship with various contractors and builders around the city. However maintaining a good relationship with a community does not mean that you have to allow any member of that community to be an active voting member of your organization. Just like you don't have to let other contractors vote on how many trucks you are going to buy this year.

              I certainly am not saying that the market has been good at bringing this topic up, they certainly could have done it better.

              Comment


              • #8
                ^There market has been terrible at consulting people. In fact, they have no idea how to do it and are being forced to learn because now the issue is getting out in public.

                This is the work on one or two individuals on the market board making trouble and operating in their own bubble. Everyone shouldn't have to suffer the consequences as a result of their desire for control of the market at any cost.

                This issue has gotten to a point where things have been done on all sides of the issue that have created distrust on both sides. The Mercer proposal being 'pushed' through by business interests did not help. But at the end of the day, these proposals are an entire overreaction and unnecessary. It's a huge step backward. Downtown is all about coming to consensus by the multiple stakeholders that take ownership. Certain individuals on the market board now and in the past (and currently influencing decision making) have gone out of the way to point out to me and others that they can't work with other stakeholders, and have no desire to. So sad and unfortunate and creates a situation where businesses on the street are really questioning if the market should be there long term.
                www.decl.org

                Comment


                • #9
                  While agree with the title of this thread and most certainly with IanO's Rodney King-esque declaration (#3), I have to say the characterization of the market as a "guest" on 104st needs to be buried. It is inaccurate and, if I were a vendor, I would consider it to be inflammatory.
                  What I didn't read about in either the metro or mack's post are the concessions vendors on the south end of the market have made. They will be apparent when the market opens.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ajs
                    I have to say the characterization of the market as a "guest" on 104st needs to be buried. It is inaccurate and, if I were a vendor, I would consider it to be inflammatory.
                    Please explain why you feel that way. Whether or not they lease the street, it is a temporary (and wonderful!) fixture in the area, and if push comes to shove it certainly won't be the buildings or businesses moving on if things can't get worked out. It is by every definition a guest in the community.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If this is the attitude the venders have had to deal with from 104street businesses then I can certainly see why this might be coming to a head:

                      For some time now, there have been complaints from the businesses on the street about the logistics of the market. The businesses feel that the configuration of the market on the south end of the street unnecessarily hides their storefronts, blocks the sidewalks, and makes it difficult for consumers to shop
                      Seriously? lol.

                      Honestly what a terribly insular attitude for the business owners on the block to have. Apparently these being inexperienced business owners who fail to realize how the market might actually be growing the street, and their businesses.

                      Imagine if decades ago the Old Stathcona Business association complained about the Farmers market stealing business away or the Fringe occasionally blocking easy access.

                      Sounds like some strange complaints. I don't know that the market would encounter this nature of conflict anywhere else. Although I'm reminded that Sobeys, on the same block, has certainly encountered strange and specious opposition they would face nowhere else.
                      "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                        Originally posted by kjh
                        Who on 104th street is looking to get onto Icon's board (assuming they don't own a suite), or wants to have a vote on how they operate Icon's tower, or commercial spaces, or the future paint colour of the balconies etc??
                        The market is a temporary guest one day a week, several months a year in that community. The residents and businesses live and operate there year round. Completely cutting them out of the decision making process for the market is not a viable solution. The comments from Dieter Kuhlmann in that article are extremely concerning. If the community cannot participate and influence the decision making process when things happen that are not in it's interest, the result may well be the market being moved or closed. How is that in the interests of the vendors?
                        Isn't this ignoring that the Downtown Market is the downtown market thats always been the downtown market for a century only now in its latest configuration is located on 104street? Seems strange then to be talking about working specifically with a "community" or street front businesses specifically.

                        This is the DOWNTOWN farmers market. Not really the 104street exclusive market. Either 104street wants the market which people like the Kuhlmann's have been deeply involved with forever, or they want to run them out over some petty percieved slights.

                        Sounds like some people new to the downtown farmers market wanting to have an inordinate amount of control over the latest version of it. In opposition to those that have been involved and running it for decades. So who really has tried to wrestle control? Why is this all really occurring?

                        Maybe the issues aren't being communicated very well. I would've thought Macks extensive several page liturgy on the topic was worthy of a national constitution debate and not something as simple as a farmers market arrangement. The politics and offended reactive minds in this are ridiculous. Just shake hands and put a market on and get over the egos.

                        This is the most surreal debate on here since Sobeywindowgate.
                        Last edited by Replacement; 11-05-2012, 01:48 PM.
                        "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I am having guests in my home for the long weekend. If they were to suddenly offer to start paying for my daughters dance lessons and my basement renovation on the condition they could remain in my home for an indefinite period, and I agreed, I would no longer consider them guests. Even if they travelled to florida for the winter.
                          While the buildings on 104 st aren't going anywhere the businesses most definitely could be moving on.
                          The interdependence of the vendors and retailers is what makes this situation "unique".

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            With the City Market opening on 104 St today, I was wondering what became of this.

                            Mack Male blog:
                            http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2012/05/10/...epresentation/
                            UPDATE (May 12): As per the comment below from City Market board chair Dieter Kuhlmann, the meeting has been postponed until mid-June. Here’s the notice that was sent to members:

                            The Special Meeting that was called for May 14, 2012 has been cancelled. Notice of a Special Meeting for the week of June 11, 2012 will be issued and mailed out next week in order to provide members with the required 21 days notice of the Special Resolution that will be the topic of the Special Meeting.
                            “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              City market day #1 downtown today, cool, but huge crowd and I love the new layout.


                              Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X