_ Whig 2007-01-23

The Whig-Standard
Local News - Tuesday, January 23, 2007 Updated @ 11:33:43 PM

An online petition to keep the Marine Museum of the Great Lakes at its current waterfront location has drawn more than 540 signatures in anticipation of a city council meeting to consider the building’s fate.

A motion on tonight’s council agenda calls for the city to “strongly endorse and support” the museum and send that message to the federal department of public works and government services.

That federal government owns the site on which the museum currently sits

The council motion calls for staff to “work to arrange a permanent land title solution for the Marine Museum in its current location.”

The museum’s lease expires in November and city staff have informed its board of trustees that it will likely have to move out by the end of the year.

That’s because Ottawa has decided the property is surplus land, meaning it plans to sell the site.

The city negotiated the initial lease for the museum in 1977 with the federal government, and has acted as property manager for the site ever since.

The museum leases the waterfront property for $1, the price the city pays the federal government for the property.

The museum, at 55 Ontario St,. is the former Kingston Shipyards and Dry Dock. In the last 30 years, the museum has invested more than $3 million in upgrades.

The museum is the only one dedicated to the history of the Great Lakes.

Postings on the website strongly endorse the museum staying in its current home. “[It’s] Unthinkable to move move a historic building as that from the centre of downtown. It would be a great loss for the tourists who visit Kingston,” said one posting.

“This is part of Kingston’s heritage, the same as Fort Henry. This would be a huge black mark for this city if we lost it,” another posting read.

The petition can be found online at www.ipetitions.com/petition/marinemuseum.

The museum motion is listed as one of the last items council will debate at its regular meeting tonight at 7:30 p.m.

The Whig-Standard
Editorial - Tuesday, January 23, 2007 Updated @ 11:25:44 PM

It’s one of those situations where the first

response is to lament the loss of a situation that has been beneficial. If we take time to turn the coin over, however, we can perhaps see that for 30 years the Marine Museum of the Great Lakes has had a sweet deal, one that would have been unrealistic to assume could last forever.

The museum is in trouble. Since it was founded in 1977, it has leased its space on the Ontario Street waterfront for $1 per year from the city, which is exactly what the city paid to lease it from the federal government. Ottawa owns the property, site of a former federal drydock and marine repair shop.

Like all levels of government, however, the feds have become more aware of the need for prudent stewardship. No doubt they’ve seen the $80-million development that has blossomed next door to the museum and come to the conclusion that they can do better than $1 per year for this particular piece of property.

Taxpayers can’t blame them. Selling that parcel of land might be appealing if those millions of dollars ended up, say, helping to refurbish Fort Henry, or becoming the long-awaited federal contribution to the downtown arena.

It wouldn’t be right, however, to abandon Canada’s only museum dedicated to preserving the maritime history of the Great Lakes, a vital tourist attraction and archival resource.

The good news about this crisis is that everyone involved seems to want to ensure the museum’s future. The city is negotiating with Ottawa on the museum’s behalf. In a letter from Public Works, the museum’s board of directors is assured the federal agency is hopeful of finding a solution that won’t require the museum to relocate – which, by the way, involves more than artifacts and display cases. Parked outside is the museum’s biggest attraction, the former Coast Guard vessel Alexander Henry.

The current lease expires in November. The city is working to get an extension of perhaps three years, so the search for a new arrangement can be undertaken properly. The federal government should grant this request. It would be a show of good faith, a meaningful gesture to support the sentiment expressed in its December letter to the board. Making the threat to the museum less imminent would give the board better prospects to put some long-term financing in place.

The board, meanwhile, should proceed with an open mind. While the Ontario Street site may be optimal – and certainly a waterfront location is preferred for a marine museum – it should also look at other options, in partnership with the
city.

Forward-thinking people, for instance, may envision a marine museum as the cornerstone of a revitalized Lake Ontario Park. If a portion of the proceeds of any sale – or lease – of the Ontario Street site could be earmarked to help pay for a new facility in Portsmouth, that could be the catalyst the city is seeking to resurrect the fortunes of the once-popular playground. Being part of a greater attraction might even increase the museum’s appeal as a destination.

One thing is sure: The current arrangement was great, and we should be grateful to have had it. It probably can’t continue, however, and it’s time to look for other ways to keep this waterfront gem in our midst.