The Old Goodyear Site: How Did We Get Here?

The Old Goodyear Site: How Did We Get Here? For almost a century, the Goodyear plant was part of Bowmanville. People worked there, families depended on it, and generations drove past that massive industrial property just south of downtown. Goodyear closed the plant in 2016. A decade later, the approximately 39-acre property at 45 Raynes Avenue is proposed for roughly 3,200 residential units, almost 10,000 square metres of non-residential space and buildings reaching 25 storeys. Before anybody starts cutting ribbons on the future, residents deserve some answers about the past - and about what is happening there now. Because the public record tells quite a story. Clarington records show years of safety and security enforcement at the former Goodyear property. Fire Services conducted inspections and issued orders relating to site security. In November 2024, the Municipality reported discovering demolition activity without an approved demolition permit for the main building. An Order to Comply followed, and a demolition permit was subsequently issued in February 2025. Then came the fire. Shortly after midnight on October 13, 2025, firefighters responded to a major fire at the property. The roof eventually collapsed. The Ministry of the Environment attended and collected water samples from Bowmanville Creek. Clarington subsequently issued an Order to Remedy Unsafe requiring the building to be safely demolished. By August 2026, municipal enforcement had escalated again. Clarington reported deteriorating buildings, unsecured portions of the property, hidden hazards, unauthorized access and what it characterized as unlawful work. The Municipality ordered 24-hour security and later arranged security itself after saying the order wasn't obeyed. A Stop Work Order followed, alleging demolition and/or construction contrary to permit conditions and without authorization. Clarington then announced it was seeking an urgent court injunction allowing it to undertake whatever work was necessary to make the property safe. Those are municipal enforcement findings and allegations - not convictions. So Here Are My Questions What is the status of the outstanding orders? What happened with the Municipality's court application? How much have Clarington taxpayers spent on security, engineers, lawyers and other work - and how much will be recovered? And what about the environment? This is a former industrial brownfield. Environmental assessments have been undertaken, and the Ministry sampled Bowmanville Creek following the fire. The records reviewed so far do not establish that recent activity caused environmental contamination or constituted an environmental offence. That's exactly why we need the underlying information. What was tested? What were the results? What monitoring occurred? And what remediation will be required before thousands of people could potentially live here? Those aren't accusations. They're reasonable questions. Mr. X Is Digging On September 20, a Freedom of Information request was submitted seeking enforcement, inspection, building-permit, environmental, court and municipal-cost records concerning the property. When those records arrive, we'll see what they say. Now Here's My Opinion I don't believe the development currently proposed for the former Goodyear lands will ultimately be built by this developer. That's not a finding by Clarington or a court decision. It's my assessment. The elephant in the room is that this is a century-old industrial brownfield. Before thousands of people can live there, environmental and remediation requirements must be satisfied. We don't yet have evidence establishing the ultimate cost. But my prediction is that remediation and site-preparation costs could become the issue that overwhelms the economics of this proposal. Then add demolition, security, engineering, litigation, financing, carrying costs, municipal charges and infrastructure. Eventually, the numbers have to work. A rendering isn't an approval. An approval isn't a shovel in the ground. And a shovel in the ground isn't necessarily a financially viable development. Follow the Money I don't believe this means the Goodyear property will remain abandoned. Quite the opposite. This is one of Bowmanville's most important redevelopment properties. I believe it will eventually be redeveloped - just not necessarily in the form, on the timetable, or by the developer presently before us. And perhaps that creates an opportunity. Maybe the eventual proposal is less intense. Maybe there's more parkland, better connections to Bowmanville Creek, better integration with downtown, more employment, different housing forms or a different balance of uses. Residents shouldn't be told the choice is this development or no development. There may be a third possibility: A different development. One that comes after the environmental questions are answered, the property is properly remediated, the enforcement issues are resolved and everyone understands the true cost of transforming a century-old industrial property into a community. So perhaps the biggest question isn't: “When will these 3,200 units be built?” Maybe it's: “Who will ultimately clean this property up - and what will Bowmanville get when they do?” The old Goodyear plant may be coming down. But I don't think we've seen the development that will ultimately replace it yet.