Council Votes to Exempt Sidewalks from St. Anthony Road

On Tuesday, March 23, 2021, London Council voted 9-6 to remove St. Anthony Road from the proposal to add sidewalks in the upcoming 2021 Infrastructure Reconstruction Project. This means that while the road reconstruction will go ahead, no sidewalks will be installed as part of this project.

The decision came after weeks of debate. Events were set in motion at the Civic Works Committee (CWC) meeting of February 9, 2021, when City staff submitted a report on the 2021 Infrastructure Reconstruction Projects that recommended road reconstruction for St. Anthony Road and eight other streets in other neighbourhoods, which required tree removal necessitated by the installation of sidewalks.

Almost immediately, area residents mobilized against the proposal. Petitions were circulated, letters of opposition written and plans were formulated to counter the plan. Response was so great that a special meeting of the CWC was held on March 15, 2021 to accommodate the flood of requests for delegations to speak to the committee. At that meeting, almost thirty residents, six of whom were from Hazelden, spoke out against the city’s plan. Their arguments centred around the issues of the environment, accessibility and good city planning. For an overview of the main arguments brought to the CWC, see the St. Anthony Road Delegations’ submission to Council.

At the meeting, motions to exempt sidewalks dealt with each street individually. Early in the process, Councillors made their positions on the proposal quite clear.

Some Councillors, like Phil Squire (Ward 6) and Steve Lehman (Ward 8), were much more willing to make exceptions to the policies based on local situations, even going as far as to suggest opening up the London Plan to review some of its policies.

Councillor Steve Lehman, who represents the Old Hazelden neighbourhood as part of Ward 8, was one of the first to speak to the motions. Councillor Lehman argued that the London Plan doesn’t work as it should every time. “What this is all about to achieve is better accessibility. What I have heard from numerous people that have disabilities and are challenged is that this plan and what it calls for doesn’t necessarily work in all circumstances.” Lehman also said that while it does provide for exceptions, he thinks Council should re-examine certain aspects of the London Plan.

Other Councillors, including Michael van Holst, Steven Hillier, Paul Van Meerbergen and Elizabeth Peloza, echoed similar sentiments.

The London Plan featured prominently in the debate. There were those, like Councillors Jesse Helmer, Anna Hopkins and Stephen Turner, who were not willing to deviate from it.

Councillor Hopkins said that this process of picking apart proposals to decide on exemptions was pitting one neighbourhood against another. In reviewing the competing arguments for and against the proposal, especially from accessibility advocates on both sides of the debate, Hopkins concluded, “Nothing makes sense.” In her closing remarks, she said, “The reason I support these plans and policies is because when I find it very difficult to make decisions I rely on our policies to make a decision for the better good of the community.”

Councillor Helmer made it very clear that he doesn’t think that the policy is the problem, saying, “the policy is actually a good one and strives to get a compromise in retrofitting existing streets,” referring to installing sidewalks on only one side of the street rather than both. His frustration became evident when he said, “How many people have to beg for a sidewalk before you’ll build it?” He concluded by saying that he wasn’t mad at the residents but at, “Councillors who keep repeating this process.”

It became evident through the meeting that one of the biggest forces behind the implementation of policy came from the staff in the City Engineering Department at City Hall. When asked to consider exemptions or deviations to the plan, the answer came back almost by rote: we have implemented the policies of the London Plan and there is no room for change. City Staff shot down every suggestion from Councillors and CWC.

In the end, arguments concerning the environment, safety and planning were overshadowed by the arguments relating to accessibility. What became evident was that persons with disabilities are not a monolithic group but are made up of different communities which certainly do not speak with one voice. However, what seems to unite them is the desire to be considered a part of the broader community. The conflict arises from the solutions proposed to achieve that inclusion.

On one side, there are those disability advocates, like Dr. Jay Menard of the London Accessibility Advisory Committee (ACCAC) or Jeff Preston, who argue from a philosophical viewpoint that allowing variances and exemptions from sidewalks or hard paths, separate from the roadway, amounts to ableism. On the other side are those, like some of the residents of Hazelden who are mobility challenged, who argue that sidewalks themselves become one of the barriers to inclusion.

There were no better examples of this stark contrast than in letters read by Councillors from two London residents on different sides of the issue.

Councillor Maureen Cassidy read a letter from Kash Husain who sits on London’s ACCAC. In the letter, Husain acknowledges the diverse nature of the different disabled communities, recognizing that the removal of a barrier for one community may introduce a barrier for another. He passionately argued that, “We all want to be included. The installation of sidewalks provides a mechanism to include us within our neighbourhood.” The letter went on to provide examples of those with dementia, cognitive challenges or other hidden disabilities needing sidewalks as navigation markers, those with hearing loss put in danger because they cannot hear oncoming traffic, those who have visual impairments who cannot perceive the condition of the roadway or traffic, or persons using service animals which are not trained to use the road surface. Husain characterized sidewalks as a safe place for the disabled to interact with their community away from the dangers of the street.

In marked contrast with the category-based examples from Husain was a letter, read aloud in part by Councillor Lehman, written by Dr. Susan Mahipaul, who holds a PhD in Philosophy (Rehabilitation Science) from McMaster University and is currently a Disability & Health Navigator at King’s College at the University of Western Ontario in London. In her letter, Mahipaul writes,

This road means inclusion and belonging for me no matter my abilities. Disability and accessibility represent complex concepts for me. As a disabled citizen, I often feel relegated to the edges. We have specific places for us to sit at. We have specific entrances and places within buildings where to use elevators and where to access washrooms and parking. I rarely get to use a space ‘like everyone else’. So, when we have a street, like St. Anthony Rd, with little vehicle traffic and a strong social, supportive, and inclusive community, where everyone feels safe, and cars know to look for us, the idea of a sidewalk feels segregating. A sidewalk feels like the place where those of us with disabilities are supposed to be in order to be ‘safe’ and others get to choose where they walk.

 

Making a sweeping decision to silence, to ignore, our embodied knowledge of how we mobilize and use the Old Hazelden community makes me wonder whether the City truly cares about our bodies and our questions of access and how we relate to each other within this community. This is a social practice that not only disables us but it could be argued that it represents systemic oppression – ableism. When absent or present is the only question, the only consideration, it represents an overall perception of accessibility for the whole city that disables those of us who enjoy living in a universally usable, friendly, safe and accessible community, a context that is very rare in this city. In the name of improving physical access I want to ask, “Improving accessibility for whom?”

To the accessibility associations and advocates who are accustomed to fighting the abled community for their rights, it comes as a shock that the most prominent voices challenging their philosophy comes from members of the disabled community itself. It must be very uncomfortable for accessibility advocates to themselves be called ableist.

The floodgates have opened. From the exception that was Runnymede Crescent last year to the new rule that seems to have been established this year, in the future it will be very difficult to implement that portion of the London Plan which mandates the inclusion of sidewalks on neighbourhood streets.

 

---

On the amendment to the motion,

notwithstanding the requirements set out in the London Plan and the warranted sidewalk program with respect to the installation of sidewalk infrastructure, the proposed new sidewalk to be located on St. Anthony Road BE REMOVED from the approved road reconstruction project for the subject street;

the motion carried passed 9 – 6.

On the entire motion dealing with all of the 2021 Infrastructure Reconstruction Projects, the motion carried 12 – 3.