Lisa Mills, BIA Coordinator, presented a delegation to Town Council on Monday, September 14th (2026) regarding the recently placed ‘SOUTH’ sign on High Street in Southampton.
“We realize that the sign has initiated a strong reaction and that not everyone will like every piece of public art or place making. We respect those differing opinions however, some conversations evolved and became unnessesarily unkind and directed toward BIA members personally.”
Mills pointed out that, as signatories of the ElectRespect Pledge, the BIA members believe they have a responsibility to listen respectfully, disagree respectfully and keep conversations about the community focused on ideas rather than individuals.
“We would also like to clarify an important misconception about the project. We appreciate that most people in this room understand that the Southampton BIA, in fact any BIA, is self-funded through a levy on commercial properties within a BIA boundary and residential properties do not fund the BIA levy. The SOUTH sign was an investment from Southampton’s business community supported by Spruce the Bruce funding, and proceeded through the municipal processes. Its purpose is to help drive our economy by creating a recognizable landmark that encourages people to stop, take photographs, share SOUTH with others and spend more time exploring and, by extension, shopping and dining in our downtown.”
She went on to say that there have previously been difficult changes and referred to past disagreements about Southampton’s giant flag when first proposed. “Strong initial feelings do not necessarily tell us what place something may eventually hold in our community. Sometimes we need to give change some time. We are already seeing this with the SOUTH sign. People are stopping. They are taking photographs and sharing them. Positive comments have increased and some people have said their opinion changed once they saw it in person. These are the reasons why our Board is concerned about relocating the sign in response to this initial reaction.”
Photos by Southampton BIA – for larger view, click on image
“There is a difference between thoughtfully reconsidering the location and reacting before being given a chance,” added Mills. “We are not asking Saugeen Shores Council to commit to this location forever and, if after a reasonable period, another downtown adjacent location is identified, and better achieves the initiative’s purpose, we are absolutely willing to have those conversations. For now though, please consider leaving it in place, see it through the colours of the seasons … orange for Truth & Reconciliation day, orange and black for Halloween, white for Remembrance Day and red and green for the holidays. Give it time. Let people experience it, let opinions evolve and then evaluate. Therefore, the BIA Board of Management respectfully asked Council to not support the motion to relocate the sign at this time.”
Vice-deputy Mayor Mike Myatt said that he had seen many people taking photos of it. “This may be a good time to take a pause and take a step back. Let’s talk about it. Give it some time.”
Councillor Dave Myette, who attends Cruiser’s hospital fundraiser night in Southampton adjacent to the sign, said that public art should not conform but enhance and reflect a difference in style. He referred to the Louvre in Paris where a giant glass pyramid now stands in what was once a traditional courtyard. “Parisians were against it and now it’s an icon. I think in time this too will settle in. I tend to agree it needs time and it is showing up in people’s photos.”
The original motion presented by Councillor Cheryl Grace and seconded by Deputy Mayor Diane Huber:
Whereas Council supports the Southampton community’s desire to maintain downtown Southampton’s traditional character, and
Whereas Council believes the current location of the SOUTH sign does not align with the objectives of the High Street reconstruction;
THEREFORE, the Council of the Town of Saugeen Shores directs staff to engage the Southampton BIA and the public to find an appropriate alternate location, and to report back to Council
Grace said that she brought the motion forward as she felt the location of the sign was inconsistent with the High Street renovation undertaken during the summer. During the CPPS public consultation she said she received more messages and phone calls from a “… wide array of Southampton residents than on any other issue”. She said the overwhelming issue was that residents wanted “… to preserve as much traditional heritage character as possible”.
She added that the current location at one of the busiest intersections detracts from that traditional look and feel and the placement of an interactive feature on a curb extension designed for pedestrian safety, at a busy intersection creates a safety and accessibility concern.
Grace also pointed out that her motion did not ask for immediate removal of the sign. “It asks staff to work with the public through public engagement and consultation and the Southampton BIA to identify a more appropriate location. The BIA owns the sign and should be part of that conversation. Public input is important. I expect this issue will be one for the next Council to consider.”
Councillor Rachel Stack pointed out that neither a brewery or the Atlantis salon facade on High Street meet the ‘character’ standard of Southampton. “Public art is not everyone’s idea of beauty or taste. When I look at it (the sign), it is in front of an old 1980s bank building. Not everything is an existential crisis. It’s cute and a bit ‘kitchie’, but that’s the intention to draw attention. Let’s give it some time and see what it looks like next summer. This kind of thing is in every small community such as Collingwood. So, I think we need to leave it. I think there are other issues we should be focusing on and I will not support the motion.”
Councillor John Divinski, the Town’s representative on the BIA Board of Management, said that the Board had been working on the issue. “The big flag created the same kind of outcry and now the waterfront cannot be considered without it. The SOUTH sign now stands in front of what can be considered a ‘square box financial institution’ that has no redeeming features adding to the character of Southampton. The SOUTH sign was meant to be fun on its own or used by residents and tourists alike! People need to chill out and give it a chance!”
He also pointed out that the BIA had no input as to where the SOUTH sign should be located the second time around (the first was at the Town Hall) “It just showed up at the corner where, by the way, it neatly conceals a square box building.”
Councillor Bud Halpin also referred to another past Southampton contentious issue. “When washrooms were proposed at Southampton Beach, residents were concerned that it would “… ruin the character of the beach. People today are now grateful for them.”
He added that the reason Southampton has a vibrant downtown is because of “… the business owners who stick their necks out to work in retail, who stick their necks out to work in the tourism business, who stick their necks out to work in the restaurant business. We should be thankful for the downtown that we have and we need to support our merchants. Visitors this summer were floored by the Southampton downtown … the sidewalks, the public art, the big flag and the beauty. The loudest voices are not always the most correct.”
Deputy Mayor Diane Huber also pointed out that the motion does not ask for removal. “Looking back at the High Street restoration, we looked at spaces for people, not ‘stuff’. Curb extensions were to provide some greenery, locations to park bikes and some seating. It wasn’t to create space to fill up. The sign is fun and a little ‘kitchy’ but is not necessarily in the right location. This motion is talking about that.”
She pointed out that the ‘boxy building in the background of SOUTH photos’ does not say anything about the community while other communities have a backdrop indicative of their community. “There is potential to consider other locations that are more reflective of the character of our community … the lighthouse, sand, Lake Huron. I think this Council has attempted to recognize that we respect character and are supportive of it even though we have not defined it. We understand there is something worth preserving and we are protecting that. To do that however, we have to be brave enough to say … maybe this doesn’t belong there and that’s what this motion is saying.”
“The curb extensions are serving the purpose for which they were intended,” added Huber. “The purpose was to also get more people out of cars, onto the street and using more active transportation (bicycles). When a plan or concept is approved, it should have a chance to live and be something hoped for after approval of the plan … we should at least consider a location more reflective of Southampton.”
When first introduced, curb extensions were also contentious. “More people are accepting of the curb extensions but some still oppose them,” said Huber. “The motion is asking for discussion … I support it.”
Vice-deputy Mayor Myatt also pointed out that the BIA did not, in fact, have any say in the re-location. “There are pros and cons for both the location and changing it. Consultation is good at all times. I will not support the motion because it says “find a new location’ but I would like to discuss the pros and cons first.”
Councillor Myette suggested a committee be struck after one full year as people have not had a full evaluation but would recommend an amendment to the motion. “It’s too soon right now to consider re-locating it.”
Councillor John Divinski said that the following should be deleted from the motion as it seems to indicate that Council has already made the decision as follows …
Whereas Council believes the current location of the SOUTH sign does not align with the objectives of the High Street reconstruction
… and eliminate the word ‘alternate’ from the final paragraph … THEREFORE, the Council of the Town of Saugeen Shores directs staff to engage the Southampton BIA and the public to find an appropriate alternate location, and to report back to Council.
Councillor Grace agreed that the key is consulting with the public but did not agree with the suggestion to wait for one year until next summer.
Mayor Luke Charbonneau pointed out that when the refurbishment and painting of the Southampton water tower was done “… never in a million years would I have believed Southampton would agree to the logo Saugeen Shores, but the public decided. We need to make a decision (on this) and we can present a few locations to the public to provide feedback. We might hear back that 60 per cent like the location. Ultimately, the municipality decided on the present location so staff will work with the BIA to look at other locations to present to the public.”
Councillor Duhaime also said he would not support the motion. “I don’t know where else you could put it.”
All of Council approved the amended motion with Councillor Duhaime opposing.
