"They Own The Land" - A Dangerous Surrender of Saint John's Future
The precedent we set today could reshape every corner of our city tomorrow
The recent debate over converting Wolastoq Park has surfaced a troubling refrain: "They own the land, they can do what they want with it."
At first glance, this seems like a straightforward property rights argument. But in Saint John, where industrial ownership extends far beyond active industrial sites, accepting this principle would effectively surrender control of our city's future.
A Warning from Experience
Look at our history: CentraCare, the TB Hospital, Alms House, Saint John Industrial School for Boys - sites of historical significance now under industrial control. Each remediated, each held in reserve, each representing a space that could be converted to industrial use the moment it becomes convenient.
Each sold at bargain prices by a province eager to offload maintenance costs and environmental liabilities - a pattern that continues to shape our city's development.
Even the Simms brush factory, which in a healthier city might have become waterfront condos with a cafe and cocktail bar pumping tax revenue into city coffers, was demolished to expand industrial parking. Each time, the justification was the same: "They own the land."
The Invisible Empire
Stand anywhere in Saint John and look around. That natural viewpoint you love? That patch of green space where your kids play? That old building you've always thought would make great apartments? Chances are, they're owned by industrial interests. The Irving Nature Park, Brown House playground, Sheldon Point, plus properties at virtually every important intersection and on every block uptown - all could theoretically become industrial sites if we accept ownership as the sole criterion for land use.
"Have they not taken enough?" one resident asked at council. This isn't hyperbole - it's a serious question about our city's future.
The False Promise
"If you don't like it, you could have bought it when it came available," defenders argue. But this ignores reality. When CentraCare closed, who else could afford the millions required for demolition and soil remediation? More importantly, why did we have to sell it? These were public assets, owned by all of us through our government. Their sale to private interests wasn't inevitable - it was a choice that prioritized short-term financial gains over long-term public benefit.
The same pattern repeats across our city - properties accumulate in industrial hands, then that ownership becomes justification for future industrial use.
The Hidden Costs
Every space that converts to industrial use represents:
Lost potential for housing development
Lost opportunity for new businesses
Lost public spaces that make neighborhoods livable
Lost tax base from alternative development
Lost buffer zones between industry and residential areas
We're already seeing the impacts. As one council observer noted, "The concentration of heavy industry has already deterred other business." Each industrial conversion makes our city less attractive for the diverse development we need.
"Even staff have said that if this parking lot is approved, the park will no longer function as a buffer between heavy industry and the adjacent residential community." This isn't speculation - it's the assessment of our own city officials.
A Better Way
Other cities prove there's a better approach. When Emera came through in 2006, they didn't tell people to "give their heads a shake" or threaten to take their ball and go home. They provided $5.3 million in community benefits for their $350 million project - recognizing that being a good corporate neighbour means more than just owning land.
The Real Stakes
This isn't about opposing industry. It's about protecting our city's future. The Saint John Fire Department's own assessment states, "...the city of Saint John is 3 industrial cities merged into one...” unlike any other community in the province. Do we really want to make this situation any more extreme?
As resident David Ryan noted at council: "Precedent is something council considers. Last year, this council rejected a daycare on Starburst Lane off River Hill Drive due to traffic concerns. If precedent means anything, traffic concerns at Simms Corner should be paramount in your decision-making."
Time to Choose
Council's role isn't to rubber stamp land use changes based solely on ownership. Their role is to protect the long-term interests of all citizens and ensure that land use decisions serve the broader community's interests.
If we accept "they own it, they can do what they want" as the final word on land use decisions, we're not just surrendering one park - we're surrendering our right to shape our city's future.
Today it might be a park becoming a parking lot. But once we establish that ownership trumps all other considerations, what's next? Which neighbourhood loses its buffer zone next? Which potential development site gets permanently converted to industrial use next?
"Once something is gone, it's gone forever," as one resident reminded Council.
It's time to reject this oversimplified property rights argument and demand better. Our city's future depends on it.
Council votes on this proposal on February 24th. Contact your councillor before then and tell them to protect our city's future by voting no on this proposal.
Hear what our neighbours told Council at the public hearing last week: