My name is Bernie Slepkov. I've researched trends transforming our societies since '97 and helped shape our smart growth^{¶ § Δ} strategies since '01-for which I have letters of recommendation ^[1] from the past Director of Planning for St. Catharines and the Commissioner of Planning for Regional Niagara.

I was approached by couple of Friends of NDSS who felt the sustainability^{¶ § Δ} perspective was missing from your deliberations. That said I won't be addressing the busing's environmental implications—at least not directly. But while environmental sustainability^{¶ §} is key to the survival of future generations, my focus is on the more immediate societal implications your decision will have on students and NOTL in the coming years.

Extremely shortsighted economics and lax enrolment policies are forcing you to consider closing Niagara-on-the-Lake's only public high school. Try as I might, I fail to understand it. You were elected to help ensure the paths to our children's future, right? So how can you consider sacrificing our students' quality of education and risk the stability of their communities?

Everything I've read to date regarding the fate of Niagara District Secondary School indicates a severe disconnection from the progressive planning directives recently adopted by our higher levels of government. Unlike the fringe hospital controversy a few years back, in this matter no one seems familiar with smart growth^{¶ § Δ} nor the vibrant, healthier communities it seeks to re-create.

Smart growth's principles exist today because back in 1991, a number of professionals and decision-makers were in agreement. The vitality and management of communities across North America were at risk. Communities were spreading out, getting too expensive to maintain. The needs for repairing and replacing aging buildings, roads, bridges and sewers were far exceeding monies available. And those same public servants and civilians, finally acknowledging the importance of healthy ecosystems^{¶ §}, came to admit that faulty urban and rural planning^{¶ §} were taking their toll on the social, financial, and physical well being of communities^{¶ §} and residents.

So it was in '91, that, according to an American Planning Association web page, over 100 officials meeting in Yosemite National Park, composed and adopted twenty-one principles to "encourage the creation of communities where residents can find everything they need within walking distance of their homes." ^[2] These Ahwahnee Principles for liveable communities (Appendix B) then gave birth to a much broader charter (Appendix C) created by various planners, developers, architects, and builders calling themselves, New Urbanists who envisioned the eventual restoration of integrated, diverse communities and neighbourhoods^{¶ §}.

What finally emerged from their efforts, albeit in a more simplistic form, is now promoted as the ten principles of smart growth (Appendix A). In 2001, Regional Niagara's council formally adopted these principles, integrating them into recent policy amendments. The Ontario government soon followed our lead, embedding the intents of those principles into provincial policy amendments, Greenbelt and Places to Grow legislation. Our Canadian adoption of smart growth highlights its universality.

The very first Ahwahnee principle calls for "complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents." The eleventh principle calls for "community designs that conserve resources and minimize waste."

In light of these principles and other emerging issues expected to soon affect our societies, recommendations made to the Trustees by the Accommodation Review Committee are indeed timely. Current economic upheavals, rising oil prices^{¶ § Δ}, global initiatives to reduce fossil fuel dependencies and to mitigate carbon emissions^{¶ §}, and sustainability^{¶ § Δ} further validate retaining NDSS with some form of joint-use or co-location of community services as ARC recommended. Such cost efficiencies provide strong social, fiscal, and environmental hedges against the hardships to come.

Tonight I am providing you with a copy of 'Local Governments and Schools: A Community-Oriented Approach', a 2008 report ^[3] jointly produced by the International City/County Management Association and Smart Growth Network. It is filled with relevant case studies, and noteworthy passages I am about to cite. As you are about to hear, the closure of small schools in particular, tear at the social and economic fabrics of the community.

"School location impacts students' modes of transportation to and from school, and therefore air and water quality. Building schools close to the neighborhoods they serve can help students get much needed physical activity, thus combating obesity and other health issues." ^[4]

Speaking to the "inextricable connection between the success of a school system and the vitality of the city", Cinncinnati city manager claims that "[w]hen companies are considering where to relocate, one of the key factors they look at is school quality. And when their employees move to the Cincinnati area, they choose where to live based on the schools." ^[5]

The case study from Casper, Wyoming mirrors NOTL's particular dilemma in that shifts toward ""schools of choice" polic[ies] that permits students to attend any school they choose in the district, make neighborhood schools irrelevant," ^[6] the results of which are reflected by your now leaning towards closing NDSS.

According to the smart growth report, "moving schools out of neighborhoods or failing to maintain them can cause disinvestment", ^[7] and result in families moving out, lost businesses, reductions of property values, and consequentially, lost property tax revenues. ^[8]

School closures also undermine a community's cultural spirit and misdirect students' sense of belonging. Busing students out from NOLT raises not just environmental issues, but issues surrounding what I will call, 'socio-educational'.

The more time students spend in transit, the less time and energy they will regularly have available for school related social, extracurricular, or community engagement activities, be those voluntary or job related.

To cite from Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Robert Putnam's acclaimed bestseller detailing the decline of social capital: "Participation in extracurricular activities (both school linked and independent) is another proven means to increase civic and social involvement in later life. In fact, participation in high school music groups, athletic teams, service clubs, and the like is among the strongest precursors of adult participation, even when we compare demographically matched groups. ^[9] … [W]e know that smaller schools encourage more active involvement in extracurricular activity than big schools. … Smaller schools, like smaller towns, generate higher expectations for mutual reciprocity and collective action. So deconcentrating megaschools or creating smaller "schools within schools" will almost surely produce civic dividends." ^[10] Educational researchers Anne Henderson and Nancy Berla conclude, "[t]he evidence is now beyond dispute. When schools work together with families to support learning, children tend to succeed not just in school, but thoughout life. ^[11] … Studies going back at least thirty years have shown that smaller schools tend to outperform large schools in a large part because smaller schools afford more opportunities and encouragement for students to engage with one another in face-to-face extracurricular activities and to take responsibility for school clubs and so forth." ^[12]

The smart growth report on page 18, defines and provides insightful material for both joint-use and co-located facilities and their benefits, particularly for small schools. With respects to collaborations, a case study out of Glendale, California is instructive in creating a "joint-use facility incorporating a multi-use gymnasium, a recreation room, meeting rooms, computer labs, classrooms for the elementary school, a joint city and school library, playing fields and parks, a community center, and a small health center." ^[13]

A city manager from Lincoln, California expressed how for his community, a similar collaboration enabled them to build "enlarged and enriched multi-purpose facilities that are much nicer than what either the city or the school district could afford on its own." ^[14]

In summation, schools serve as community anchors that support greater community interaction, engagement, and pride. "School facilities that are integrated into neighborhoods can contribute to stronger community identity and cohesion. Rural communities in particular benefit from having schools integrated into the community fabric, as they provide a meeting place and community center. When neighborhood schools are closed or relocated away from the populations they serve, they cannot fill this role. A study of eight small towns in rural North Dakota found that communities that had a school close due to consolidation realized a decline in citizen participation in local organizations and activities. Citizens also rated their "quality of life significantly lower than did residents of communities that had retained their local schools."" ^[15]

In closing, the social and economic fabrics of NOLT, indeed all small communities across the continent, are under threat. The economic considerations DSBN uses for closing NDSS are clearly reflective of outdated, isolated 'silo' thinking, and closing NDSS would be in violation of the new planning directives.

Quite obviously the principles and objectives of smart growth were never even considered in the senior staffs' deliberations. If they had been your course of action might have included a plan for aligning with Regional and Provincial smart growth^{¶ § Δ} policies. Instead of pursuing NDSS's closure, you'd be exploring in far greater depth, ARC's recommendations to share community resources, thus fulfilling New Urbanism's intended objective "to avoid destructive competition for tax base[s] by sharing revenues and resources more cooperatively." ^[16]

No.	Principle	Summary
Go to Word Document    Print Content || Go to Site Directory || Pagemap || Up || Dwn
1	Create a range of housing opportunities and choices	Providing quality housing for people of all income levels is an integral component in any smart growth strategy.
2	Create walkable neighbourhoods	Walkable communities are desirable places to live, work, learn, worship and play, and therefore a key component of smart growth.
3	Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions	Growth can create great places to live, work and play -- if it responds to a community's own sense of how and where it wants to grow.
4	Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place	Smart growth encourages communities to craft a vision and set standards for development and construction which respond to community values of architectural beauty and distinctiveness, as well as expanded choices in housing and transportation.
5	Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective	For a community to be successful in implementing smart growth, it must be embraced by the private sector.
6	Mix land uses	Smart growth supports the integration of mixed land uses into communities as a critical component of achieving better places to live.
7	Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas	Open space preservation supports smart growth goals by bolstering local economies, preserving critical environmental areas, improving our communities quality of life, and guiding new growth into existing communities.
8	Provide a variety of transportation choices	Providing people with more choices in housing, shopping, communities, and transportation is a key aim of smart growth.
9	Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities	Smart growth directs development towards existing communities already served by infrastructure, seeking to utilize the resources that existing neighborhoods offer, and conserve open space and irreplaceable natural resources on the urban fringe.
10	Take advantage of compact building design	Smart growth provides a means for communities to incorporate more compact building design as an alternative to conventional, land consumptive development.

Community Principles

1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents.
2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other.
3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.
4. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.
5. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses.
6. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.
7. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night.
8. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development.
9. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic.
10. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts.
11. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.
12. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.
13. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community.

Regional Principles

1. The regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways.
2. Regions should be bounded by and provide a continuous system of greenbelt/wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions.
3. Regional institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be located in the urban core.
4. Materials and methods of construction should be specific to the region, exhibiting a continuity of history and culture and compatibility with the climate to encourage the development of local character and community identity.

Implementation Principles

1. The general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles.
2. Rather than allowing developer-initiated, piecemeal development, local governments should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate where new growth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur.
3. Prior to any development, a specific plan should be prepared based on these planning principles.
4. Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process should be provided visual models of all planning proposals.

"The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of society's built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge.

We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy.

We recognize that physical solutions by themselves will not solve social and economic problems, but neither can economic vitality, community stability, and environmental health be sustained without a coherent and supportive physical framework.

We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.

We represent a broad-based citizenry, composed of public and private sector leaders, community activists, and multidisciplinary professionals. We are committed to reestablishing the relationship between the art of building and the making of community, through citizen-based participatory planning and design.

We dedicate ourselves to reclaiming our homes, blocks, streets, parks, neighborhoods, districts, towns, cities, regions, and environment.

We assert the following principles to guide public policy, development practice, urban planning, and design:

 

THE REGION: METROPOLIS, CITY & TOWN

1. Metropolitan regions are finite places with geographic boundaries derived from topography, watersheds, coastlines, farmlands, regional parks, and river basins. The metropolis is made of multiple centers that are cities, towns, and villages, each with its own identifiable center and edges.
2. The metropolitan region is a fundamental economic unit of the contemporary world. Governmental cooperation, public policy, physical planning, and economic strategies must reflect this new reality.
3. The metropolis has a necessary and fragile relationship to its agrarian hinterland and natural landscapes. The relationship is environmental, economic, and cultural. Farmland and nature are as important to the metropolis as the garden is to the house.
4. Development patterns should not blur or eradicate the edges of the metropolis. Infill development within existing urban areas conserves environmental resources, economic investment, and social fabric, while reclaiming marginal and abandoned areas. Metropolitan regions should develop strategies to encourage such infill development over peripheral expansion.
5. Where appropriate, new development contiguous to urban boundaries should be organized as neighborhoods and districts, and be integrated with the existing urban pattern. Noncontiguous development should be organized as towns and villages with their own urban edges, and planned for a jobs/housing balance, not as bedroom suburbs.
6. The development and redevelopment of towns and cities should respect historical patterns, precedents, and boundaries.
7. Cities and towns should bring into proximity a broad spectrum of public and private uses to support a regional economy that benefits people of all incomes. Affordable housing should be distributed throughout the region to match job opportunities and to avoid concentrations of poverty.
8. The physical organization of the region should be supported by a framework of transportation alternatives. Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems should maximize access and mobility throughout the region while reducing dependence upon the automobile.
9. Revenues and resources can be shared more cooperatively among the municipalities and centers within regions to avoid destructive competition for tax base and to promote rational coordination of transportation, recreation, public services, housing, and community institutions.

 

THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE DISTRICT, AND THE CORRIDOR

1. The neighborhood, the district, and the corridor are the essential elements of development and redevelopment in the metropolis. They form identifiable areas that encourage citizens to take responsibility for their maintenance and evolution.
2. Neighborhoods should be compact, pedestrian-friendly, and mixed-use. Districts generally emphasize a special single use, and should follow the principles of neighborhood design when possible. Corridors are regional connectors of neighborhoods and districts; they range from boulevards and rail lines to rivers and parkways.
3. Many activities of daily living should occur within walking distance, allowing independence to those who do not drive, especially the elderly and the young. Interconnected networks of streets should be designed to encourage walking, reduce the number and length of automobile trips, and conserve energy.
4. Within neighborhoods, a broad range of housing types and price levels can bring people of diverse ages, races, and incomes into daily interaction, strengthening the personal and civic bonds essential to an authentic community.
5. Transit corridors, when properly planned and coordinated, can help organize metropolitan structure and revitalize urban centers. In contrast, highway corridors should not displace investment from existing centers.
6. Appropriate building densities and land uses should be within walking distance of transit stops, permitting public transit to become a viable alternative to the automobile.
7. Concentrations of civic, institutional, and commercial activity should be embedded in neighborhoods and districts, not isolated in remote, single-use complexes. Schools should be sized and located to enable children to walk or bicycle to them.
8. The economic health and harmonious evolution of neighborhoods, districts, and corridors can be improved through graphic urban design codes that serve as predictable guides for change.
9. A range of parks, from tot-lots and village greens to ballfields and community gardens, should be distributed within neighborhoods. Conservation areas and open lands should be used to define and connect different neighborhoods and districts.

 

THE BLOCK, THE STREET, AND THE BUILDING

1. A primary task of all urban architecture and landscape design is the physical definition of streets and public spaces as places of shared use.
2. Individual architectural projects should be seamlessly linked to their surroundings. This issue transcends style.
3. The revitalization of urban places depends on safety and security. The design of streets and buildings should reinforce safe environments, but not at the expense of accessibility and openness.
4. In the contemporary metropolis, development must adequately accommodate automobiles. It should do so in ways that respect the pedestrian and the form of public space.
5. Streets and squares should be safe, comfortable, and interesting to the pedestrian. Properly configured, they encourage walking and enable neighbors to know each other and protect their communities.
6. Architecture and landscape design should grow from local climate, topography, history, and building practice.
7. Civic buildings and public gathering places require important sites to reinforce community identity and the culture of democracy. They deserve distinctive form, because their role is different from that of other buildings and places that constitute the fabric of the city.
8. All buildings should provide their inhabitants with a clear sense of location, weather and time. Natural methods of heating and cooling can be more resource-efficient than mechanical systems.
9. Preservation and renewal of historic buildings, districts, and landscapes affirm the continuity and evolution of urban society."

1. http://for-legacies-sake.ca/references.php

2. American Planning Association, Top Planning Stories - http://www.planning.org/

3. Local Governments and Schools: A Community-Oriented Approach; ICMA Press, 2008 http://icma.org/Documents/Document/Document/5753

4. Local Governments and Schools; page 6

5. Ibid. pages 30-31

6. Ibid. page 21

7. Ibid. page 6

8. Ibid; paraphrased from various sections

9. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Robert D. Putnam, 1999, pg. 405 footnote #4

10. Ibid; page 405

11. Ibid; page 303

12. Ibid; pg. 304 (footnote 17)

13. Local Governments and Schools; page 17

14. Ibid. page 22

15. Ibid. pg. 8 citing Randall S. Sell, "Socio-economic Impacts of School Consolidation on Host and Vacated Communities," Agricultural Economics Report 347 (1996), http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED423100

16. Charter of the New Urbanism

17. Principles of Smart Growth; http://www.smartgrowth.org/engine/index.php/principles/

18. Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities - http://www.lgc.org/ahwahnee/principles.html

19. The Charter for a New Urbanism: http://www.newurbanism.org/pages/532096/