by Anne Finlay-Stewart, Hub Editor

The deal is sealed, the $10 cheque is cashed, and the old 1853 Courthouse and jail are the property of a private corporation for the first time in 162 years.

The Courthouse was sold once before to a developer in 1985 while the jail was still in use. That deal fell through,  the city made some repairs and leased the building to the Grey Bruce Arts Council, which in turn rented out office space and studios.

Flash forward thirty years. Priorities for the city have changed, and staff and council decisions reflect the change in vision.

The timing of the May sale to Southbridge Care Homes is not insignificant. Our sources say that there was a previous offer from Southbridge, during the term of the previous city council. It may have been one of the two mentioned by former city manager in a July 2014 radio interview. Presumably it was for more than $10, but that remains in the minutes of an in camera meeting as do the reasons it was not successful.

This year's offer came exactly 15 days after the Tom Thomson Art Gallery held a well-promoted and attended open public meeting at the Bayshore to again present and take questions on its business plan for incorporation and expansion at the Courthouse property. Clearly that meeting got someone's attention.

The Tom Thomson Art Gallery has been very open and transparent with the city. Last September, after the Gallery's board of management laid out its rationale for moving from being a department of the city to a non-profit corporation,  city council approved the transfer in principal. Since then there have been regular reports to the new council, and the Gallery has answered questions and provided reports as requested, including a detailed business case for both incorporation and expansion at each of the current and Courthouse locations. The wheels of municipal government grind more slowly than real estate deals.

Apparently this Council has more faith in the unseen fiscal forecasts of Southbridge Capital than in the 67+page business plan of one of its own departments. Or perhaps it is just that a steady supply of vulnerable old people seems like a surer bet.

But even that bet is heavily hedged in favour of the developer. A buy-back clause in the sales agreement allows the purchaser to leave the property essentially untouched for up to four years and then sell it back to the city for the same $10 bill. Southbridge could exercise that prerogative if they do not like their tax classification, or if they do not get the desired approvals from the provincial government, adequate financing or development incentives. They can also sell the property back to the city if they are "not satisfied with the information obtained or requirements set out" in any architect report, heritage report or designation, development cost or other financial report, traffic study, engineering standards or "any other report obtained by it relating to the proposed redevelopment of the property". Ten dollars is a small price to hold the option on any piece of property for four years.

There is no suggestion that Southbridge does not intend to go through with its planned development or the courthouse renovation, nor doubt that there will be taxes and jobs if and when they do. But the door is wide open for them to walk away and that risk could affect any number of city decisions.

On June 29, former councillor Marg Gaviller took the opportunity to ask a question during Council's regular public question period. "Given the 162 year old court house is the premier heritage property, what will Council do to ensure that the designated features of this building will be protected from alteration? Is Council prepared to deny all requests from the developer to alter the property's protection?"
City Manager Wayne Ritchie replied that staff are working with the developer to ensure designated heritage features are protected and that he could not comment on requests from the developer that have not been received.

At the announcement of the conditional sale of the Courthouse to Southbridge, mayor Ian Boddy was quoted as saying it was "perhaps one of the most important buildings in the history of the city." In his campaign last fall, Boddy said he would make "every decision in the long-term best interests of the city and citizens of Owen Sound" and communicate better with residents, "helping explain the decisions we make".