A strategy endorsed by Esquimalt鈥檚 municipal council that would allow a certain level of commercial activity in parks is worth watching 鈥� it could serve as an example of what to do or what not to do, depending on how the idea is executed.
Mayor Barb Desjardins said there are options, such as food trucks and kayak rentals, that the public might accept in municipal parks.
It鈥檚 an idea that could work, in certain parks and under certain circumstances. Concession stands and rental of items such as boats and canoes have long been associated with parks.
But while the concept is part of Esquimalt鈥檚 economic-development strategy, the primary goal should be to provide services that would enhance the park experience, not to turn parks into commercial centres. Strict limits on such things as size, numbers and hours of operation should be imposed. The idea could be tried in one or two parks to see what the effects would be.
If such enterprises are permitted, they should not be allowed to detract in any way from the enjoyment of the parks and the protection of the natural environment.
But no matter what happens in Esquimalt, don鈥檛 for a second expect it would lead to the establishment of a tearoom in Victoria鈥檚 Beacon Hill Park. History indicates it would be foolhardy to suggest such a move.
Since the park was first set aside as a protected area by Sir James Douglas in 1858, controversy has raged over conflicting uses. In 1882, ownership of the park was transferred to the city with the condition that it was 鈥渢o be maintained and preserved by the corporation and their successors for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public.鈥�
In 1884, notes Victoria historian Janis Ringuette, in response to pressure for development within the park, Supreme Court Chief Justice Matthew Baillie Begbie ruled that the park was not be used 鈥渇or general purposes of profit, or utility, however great the prospect of these may be.鈥�
That did not stop the threat of commercialism. A letter in the Daily Colonist in May 1899 complained about 鈥渃andy, peanut and lemonade dealers who make life miserable at the park on any and all occasions.鈥�
The idea has persisted that people should be able to purchase refreshments while enjoying the park.
To quote Ringuette鈥檚 research: 鈥淚t was 鈥榓n outrage鈥� that Beacon Hill Park had no place 鈥榓 person can get a cup of tea,鈥� Alderman R.A.C. Dewar said in 1946. Mayor George said he wanted refreshments available and that hundreds of visitors complained every year about the lack of food and drink.鈥�
Similar proposals have arisen nonstop, says Ringuette. 鈥淪ince 1946, there have been at least 13 proposals seriously discussed by city council and the community,鈥� she writes.
But Begbie鈥檚 ruling has stood. It was reinforced and extended in 1998 by Supreme Court Justice R.D. Wilson, who handed down a decision prohibiting any commercialism, including advertising signs and banners, in Beacon Hill Park.
So regardless of what happens in Esquimalt, a tearoom in Beacon Hill Park is a non-starter. The park鈥檚 defenders, who have the law on their side, fear what can happen if commercialism is unleashed there, even in a small way.
That鈥檚 why Esquimalt, if it decides to proceed, should do so cautiously, leaving a way out if commerce begins to threaten the quality of the park experience.
Among other reasons, parks are set aside as refuges from city life, a way to get back to nature, to get away from it all.
And what鈥檚 the point of getting away from it all if you take it all with you?
