People who have been puzzled by the devotion of Windsor Star columnists Chris Vander Doelen and Gord Henderson to Mayor Eddie Francis and his every idea and whim, scratch your heads no longer.
No it’s not primarily because Star editorial page editor John Coleman is married to the mayor’s executive assistant Norma, as many people charge. It’s because journalists are addicted to scoops.
And in case you didn’t notice, the mayor dishes up scoops to Chris and Gord on a regular basis. He has them on speed dial, as Star Editor Mary Beneteau told the newspaper’s readers a few moons ago.
The latest example can be seen in Vander Doelen’s scribblings on Page 3 today, entitled “Tax plan would lure investors.” Mayor Francis told City Council late Monday afternoon that he was going to introduce a notice of motion for a city-wide Community Improvement Plan at the public meeting that night. He urged Council to waive the procedural bylaw so the plan could be voted on immediately.
The mayor introduced the resolution at the end of the Council meeting around 9 p.m. Familiar with how the Star deadlines work, I know it would have been impossible for Vander Doelen to write a column, detailing the plan, for Tuesday’s paper without having advance knowledge, unlike City Councillors, directly from the mayor’s office.
Many of the columns penned by Chris and Gord are like this. Once in a while they quote Mayor Francis, but for the most part they simply paraphrase his musings on a given issue and claim them as their own.
Chris, when he first took over as the regular page 3 columnist for Gord, was critical about a few of the mayor’s initiatives, notably the downtown canal. Soon, however, the mayor began feeding him scoops which at times wins the columnist above-the-fold, front-page stories with his mug shot attached.
Now we cannot find a cross word for the mayor in any of Vander Doelen’s columns.
Prior to his semi-retirement, Gord was the chief benefactor of this mayoral pipeline, although he still uses this insider information to pen most of his weekly pillars that invariably paint the mayor in a glowing light.
As an old newspaperman myself, I can fully understand the lure of this attachment at the hip to a man who favours them with the filtered, sanitized and spun information that allows the mayor to bestride the City of Windsor.
It’s been proven that Gord and Chris, not wanting this gravy train of exclusives to ever end, will tar and feather any voices of opposition to the mayor on Council, or outside Council.
So what does this arrangement between its opinion leaders and the mayor say about the integrity of the Windsor Star?
Yes, they can thumb their scoop-enriched noses at their so-called competition from the electronic media and various and sundry blogs and print periodicals. But no, they can no longer claim to be a pillar of the Free Press.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Retention Basin VS Canal
I found the choice of a prop interesting this week when Mayor Eddie Francis posed for photo ops with Sandra Pupatello and Jeff Watson to regurgitate the benefits of infrastructure stimulus funding for Windsor.
The prop was the $67-million storm water retention basin, under construction on the riverfront. I did not attend the event since I have many other balls in the air these days, but I now regret it since I missed a great irony.
It was May 1, 2009 when I spilled out the words – “Your Arrogance Knows No Bounds” at Malden Centre after the mayor called a third meeting of Council in about a week to once again try to pressure Councillors into supporting his $40-million plus downtown canal project.
After my outburst, triggered by Jeff Watson’s admission that the mayor had sent him plans for the canal months earlier, while withholding same from Councillors, I am proud to say that I moved the successful motion to apply for the retention basin funding instead of the canal funding.
Here is what Mayor Francis said in the wake of that decision: “Other cities are putting forward massive projects with vision. Today, here, instead of such vision, we have a receptor sewer project … how does that diversify our economy? All we’ve done is remove the opportunity for federal government funding.”
A year and a half later, with an election looming, Mayor Francis seems to have discovered the great merit of the retention basin, which will end sewage overflows into the Detroit River.
The canal, however, has not been forgotten. Mayor Francis has promised to make it an election issue. To that end, I will be asking residents of the new Ward 4 if that project should be one of Council’s priorities among 11 others I will be listing on a survey soon to be delivered door to door.
I invite readers of this site to start weighing in on this issue in the comments section: “Should tax money be spent on a downtown canal project?”
The prop was the $67-million storm water retention basin, under construction on the riverfront. I did not attend the event since I have many other balls in the air these days, but I now regret it since I missed a great irony.
It was May 1, 2009 when I spilled out the words – “Your Arrogance Knows No Bounds” at Malden Centre after the mayor called a third meeting of Council in about a week to once again try to pressure Councillors into supporting his $40-million plus downtown canal project.
After my outburst, triggered by Jeff Watson’s admission that the mayor had sent him plans for the canal months earlier, while withholding same from Councillors, I am proud to say that I moved the successful motion to apply for the retention basin funding instead of the canal funding.
Here is what Mayor Francis said in the wake of that decision: “Other cities are putting forward massive projects with vision. Today, here, instead of such vision, we have a receptor sewer project … how does that diversify our economy? All we’ve done is remove the opportunity for federal government funding.”
A year and a half later, with an election looming, Mayor Francis seems to have discovered the great merit of the retention basin, which will end sewage overflows into the Detroit River.
The canal, however, has not been forgotten. Mayor Francis has promised to make it an election issue. To that end, I will be asking residents of the new Ward 4 if that project should be one of Council’s priorities among 11 others I will be listing on a survey soon to be delivered door to door.
I invite readers of this site to start weighing in on this issue in the comments section: “Should tax money be spent on a downtown canal project?”
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Pearls Of Wisdom From The G-Man
History has shown us that the black and white of extreme ideology – whether on the left or the right – is a nasty thing. I fear the City of Windsor is experiencing whiffs of these elements at the moment.
We have Mayor Eddie (Ronnie Reaguns) Francis and the Windsor Star on the right, and the doctrinaire descendents of Sid Ryan on the left. For Windsor to survive and be strong we need to find the middle ground.
With all the rhetoric raging on the outsourcing debate, it is sometimes difficult to find kernels of truth. Thanks to a simple but profound letter from a guy who calls himself a g-man, I discovered such a kernel last week.
Here is the email Mike Aubin sent City Councillors in the wake of the garbage collection outsourcing decision:
Hello Councilors, my name is Mike Aubin and I am currently working as a Refuse collector/Driver for the city of Windsor. I have been a refuse collector for almost 20 yrs, 11 with the city of Windsor and 9 for a private company. I just wanted to share with you how it felt when you decided to outsource my job. It literally felt like I was punched in the stomach, or sick to my stomach, I was sad, angry, and for the most part unappreciated. The morale has been very low at work, with all the uncertainty of where we will end up and who will be laid off. I understand that there is a possible savings by privatizing and you want to hold the line on taxes. But I feel my Department has worked very hard to save money for the city including this year’s reduction of 2 garbage trucks and 3 employees. This meant a heavier workload to myself and co workers. I am also confident we will continue to work with administration to keep costs down. It is a very physically demanding job and I feel we are paid well for this.
I have two family members that continue to work for the private refuse company, my father who is 65 and my uncle who is 60. They make nearly $9 less an hour then me, and workers who only pitch garbage make even less. They must work many hours and long days to receive a decent pay just to stay ahead. My job is not only physically demanding, but you work in all weather conditions such as hot, humid, cold, rainy and windy days, we encounter feces, unknown liquids, dead animals, rotten food, maggots, spiders, ants and the occasional rodent. We also encounter the general public, face to face with residents, joggers, bikers, children and fellow drivers on a daily basis. Last week I have encountered so many residents on my routes who are also angry and upset that we are going to be outsourced for a low bidding company from Toronto. I even received messages written on the trash disapproving of Council”s decision. I believe it is only a small majority who are happy with your decision, and possibly still upset over the strike. I admit our union made some mistakes and some members acted inappropriately and I apologize for there behaviour. We are human, and I believe from the amount of encouragement I received lately from the residents of Windsor, they believe us garbage men earn a fair wage and are willing to sacrifice to keep Windsor Public. I was always proud to say I was a garbage man for the city of Windsor, I love my job and I take pride in it. I applied almost 12 years ago to be a Refuse Collector and I intend to retire as one. I have no desire to go to Parks and Rec, being a garbage man for the city of Windsor gives me job satisfaction and is the pinnacle for me, this is what I have wanted to be since I was a young. Working for the City has changed my life. I can afford a mortgage, a vehicle, to travel and simply enjoy life knowing I am doing something I love. I will continue to be the best garbage man I can be until my job is gone. Please do not eliminate these jobs, this could be the pinnacle for someone else in the community who aspires to be a refuse collector, a recycler, a mechanic, a supervisor or a clerical staff for a great employer. By doing this you are even cutting out Windsor Mobile Wash who do a fantastic job power washing our trucks to make them look great in the public. Again I hope you reconsider your decision for the better of the City of Windsor.
Mike Aubin
The G-man reminds us that there are real people behind the numbers and the dollar signs. It is one message from the labour community that rings true, and it is one reason why I preferred to keep 50-percent of refuse collection in-house. The city is losing a lot of pride, heart and soul when it loses employees like Mike Aubin.
I will never forget why I was a supporter back in the early 1980s when the journalists at the Windsor Star formed a union. Management of this once paternal company dealt a bitter downsizing card. The layoffs and downgrading paid little regard to the seniority or the human factors and my wife at the time was caught in the fulcrum.
Now the Star’s opinion leaders find themselves in a cheerleading role as Windsor City Hall polarizes, and taking the right-wing’s hard-liner side.
As vice-chair of Council’s Small Business Advisory Panel, which will address Council Monday night, I am acutely aware that taxes need to be harnessed so the private sector can survive and thrive in the new economy, save and create jobs.
There are no easy solutions, but everyone needs to recognize that Windsor’s private and public sectors are all in this fight together.
We have Mayor Eddie (Ronnie Reaguns) Francis and the Windsor Star on the right, and the doctrinaire descendents of Sid Ryan on the left. For Windsor to survive and be strong we need to find the middle ground.
With all the rhetoric raging on the outsourcing debate, it is sometimes difficult to find kernels of truth. Thanks to a simple but profound letter from a guy who calls himself a g-man, I discovered such a kernel last week.
Here is the email Mike Aubin sent City Councillors in the wake of the garbage collection outsourcing decision:
Hello Councilors, my name is Mike Aubin and I am currently working as a Refuse collector/Driver for the city of Windsor. I have been a refuse collector for almost 20 yrs, 11 with the city of Windsor and 9 for a private company. I just wanted to share with you how it felt when you decided to outsource my job. It literally felt like I was punched in the stomach, or sick to my stomach, I was sad, angry, and for the most part unappreciated. The morale has been very low at work, with all the uncertainty of where we will end up and who will be laid off. I understand that there is a possible savings by privatizing and you want to hold the line on taxes. But I feel my Department has worked very hard to save money for the city including this year’s reduction of 2 garbage trucks and 3 employees. This meant a heavier workload to myself and co workers. I am also confident we will continue to work with administration to keep costs down. It is a very physically demanding job and I feel we are paid well for this.
I have two family members that continue to work for the private refuse company, my father who is 65 and my uncle who is 60. They make nearly $9 less an hour then me, and workers who only pitch garbage make even less. They must work many hours and long days to receive a decent pay just to stay ahead. My job is not only physically demanding, but you work in all weather conditions such as hot, humid, cold, rainy and windy days, we encounter feces, unknown liquids, dead animals, rotten food, maggots, spiders, ants and the occasional rodent. We also encounter the general public, face to face with residents, joggers, bikers, children and fellow drivers on a daily basis. Last week I have encountered so many residents on my routes who are also angry and upset that we are going to be outsourced for a low bidding company from Toronto. I even received messages written on the trash disapproving of Council”s decision. I believe it is only a small majority who are happy with your decision, and possibly still upset over the strike. I admit our union made some mistakes and some members acted inappropriately and I apologize for there behaviour. We are human, and I believe from the amount of encouragement I received lately from the residents of Windsor, they believe us garbage men earn a fair wage and are willing to sacrifice to keep Windsor Public. I was always proud to say I was a garbage man for the city of Windsor, I love my job and I take pride in it. I applied almost 12 years ago to be a Refuse Collector and I intend to retire as one. I have no desire to go to Parks and Rec, being a garbage man for the city of Windsor gives me job satisfaction and is the pinnacle for me, this is what I have wanted to be since I was a young. Working for the City has changed my life. I can afford a mortgage, a vehicle, to travel and simply enjoy life knowing I am doing something I love. I will continue to be the best garbage man I can be until my job is gone. Please do not eliminate these jobs, this could be the pinnacle for someone else in the community who aspires to be a refuse collector, a recycler, a mechanic, a supervisor or a clerical staff for a great employer. By doing this you are even cutting out Windsor Mobile Wash who do a fantastic job power washing our trucks to make them look great in the public. Again I hope you reconsider your decision for the better of the City of Windsor.
Mike Aubin
The G-man reminds us that there are real people behind the numbers and the dollar signs. It is one message from the labour community that rings true, and it is one reason why I preferred to keep 50-percent of refuse collection in-house. The city is losing a lot of pride, heart and soul when it loses employees like Mike Aubin.
I will never forget why I was a supporter back in the early 1980s when the journalists at the Windsor Star formed a union. Management of this once paternal company dealt a bitter downsizing card. The layoffs and downgrading paid little regard to the seniority or the human factors and my wife at the time was caught in the fulcrum.
Now the Star’s opinion leaders find themselves in a cheerleading role as Windsor City Hall polarizes, and taking the right-wing’s hard-liner side.
As vice-chair of Council’s Small Business Advisory Panel, which will address Council Monday night, I am acutely aware that taxes need to be harnessed so the private sector can survive and thrive in the new economy, save and create jobs.
There are no easy solutions, but everyone needs to recognize that Windsor’s private and public sectors are all in this fight together.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Pal Gord Needs To Remove Blinders
My old canoeing partner Gord Henderson took a shot across the bow at me in Saturday’s Windsor Star. “Who would have thought that my old pal Alan Halberstadt, once a ferocious tax fighter and downsizer,” would oppose the 100-percent outsourcing of recycling and solid waste collection? he wrote.
These words appeared in yet another of his weekly genuflections to Mayor Eddie Francis. Gord is a sweet man, an old friend and a fine writer, but he has finally spurred me to ask the question: “Who would have thought that Gord Henderson, the once ferocious City Hall watchdog and fact-finder, would become such and unquestioning lapdog of the mayor of Windsor?”
Gord’s sweeping condemnation of anyone who dared to vote against the scorched earth outsourcing option lacks any kind of analysis or balance. I fear that City Councilors have also lost that balance because of a fear of getting pounded by the Windsor Star.
As for me, yes I opposed the 100-percent outsourcing option. It’s a position I have consistently held, and stated publicly, since the beginning the waste and recycling tendering process almost a year ago. I continue to believe that the city needs to retain a measure of control.
Those who watched the debate know that I favored the option to outsource 100 percent of recycling and 50 percent of the solid waste collection. This option would keep some of the collection in house, and retain half of the garbage truck fleet in case the city decides to go back into the business full-time a few years down the road.
It would provide a safeguard if Turtle Island, the Toronto contractor, doesn’t work out. In addition, the 50-percent option would cost the taxpayer less upfront since half the employees, 24 I am told, would be retained as collectors, and not all would be bumped into the parks department where they will be replacing part-time rink attendants and summers students at much higher wages until they retire.
In the end, after seven years, the 50-percent option would save $7.7 million, a significant savings to the taxpayer.
That is less than the $8.9-million savings estimated in the administration report, but it is based on the assumption of an annual 40-percent rolling retirement rate of the displaced waste collectors. Former Central Yard management guru Ron McConnell, for one, seriously doubts that assumption, which pegs transitional funding requirements at $7.648,600 to pay the higher salaries until attrition of some 46 workers fully kicks in.
McConnell believes that figure is greatly exaggerated. If the rolling retirement rate is instead 20 percent, for instance, the transitional funding could be $12 to $14 million and greatly diminish the business case.
As it is, the upfront, one-time transitional cost of the 50-percent option is estimated at $2,408,542 compared to the aforementioned $7,648,600.
Those who cared to read the entire administration report will know that the 50-percent solution was actually described as “appealing.” In discussing this option with finance staff prior to the July 12 meeting, I learned that operations managers prefer it to the take-no-prisoners option. For reporters and columnists who didn’t read the report, here is what administration said about the option I favoured:
The Hybrid model is similar to the one used in Winter Control and it has been successful there. Other municipalities have employed this model and have found it to be successful for the reasons noted below:
• Would maintain operational flexibility, i.e. number of yard-waste pick-ups could be easily changed, special clean-ups and events (e.g. floods, festivals).
• Able to respond quickly to changes in the Waste Diversion Act, i.e. possible legislated addition of an organics program.
• Could be considered the first step toward fully exiting the direct provision of the service if Council should decide to do so in the future.
• This would permit an easier transition from a partially contracted to a fully contracted model of service delivery through existing employee attrition over the next few years.
• More easily able to ramp back up to 100% waste and recycling collection services by city forces in the future if advantageous to the city due to dissatisfaction with the level of service provided by the contractor.
• Encourages competition between Union and Contractor with respect to efficiency, service level, service delivery, etc. (holds both parties accountable).
• Less disruption to the entire organization than the placement of displaced employees would cause with the 100 percent contracting-out option at this time.
Those who argue that the 100-percent option would not protect the public against a repeat of the 101-day garbage strike need to turn to Page 32 of the outsourcing contract. Clause 22.1 Strike Contingency Plan., states that one month prior to the commencement of service, the supplier must submit a strike contingency plan that will address alternative methods for the collection of waste so as to maintain the services in the event of a labour dispute.
For all those reasons, and one more, I believe the hybrid outsourcing model is the best option. The one further reason? That option might just reclaim a modicum of positive labour relations that no longer exist at City Hall.
These words appeared in yet another of his weekly genuflections to Mayor Eddie Francis. Gord is a sweet man, an old friend and a fine writer, but he has finally spurred me to ask the question: “Who would have thought that Gord Henderson, the once ferocious City Hall watchdog and fact-finder, would become such and unquestioning lapdog of the mayor of Windsor?”
Gord’s sweeping condemnation of anyone who dared to vote against the scorched earth outsourcing option lacks any kind of analysis or balance. I fear that City Councilors have also lost that balance because of a fear of getting pounded by the Windsor Star.
As for me, yes I opposed the 100-percent outsourcing option. It’s a position I have consistently held, and stated publicly, since the beginning the waste and recycling tendering process almost a year ago. I continue to believe that the city needs to retain a measure of control.
Those who watched the debate know that I favored the option to outsource 100 percent of recycling and 50 percent of the solid waste collection. This option would keep some of the collection in house, and retain half of the garbage truck fleet in case the city decides to go back into the business full-time a few years down the road.
It would provide a safeguard if Turtle Island, the Toronto contractor, doesn’t work out. In addition, the 50-percent option would cost the taxpayer less upfront since half the employees, 24 I am told, would be retained as collectors, and not all would be bumped into the parks department where they will be replacing part-time rink attendants and summers students at much higher wages until they retire.
In the end, after seven years, the 50-percent option would save $7.7 million, a significant savings to the taxpayer.
That is less than the $8.9-million savings estimated in the administration report, but it is based on the assumption of an annual 40-percent rolling retirement rate of the displaced waste collectors. Former Central Yard management guru Ron McConnell, for one, seriously doubts that assumption, which pegs transitional funding requirements at $7.648,600 to pay the higher salaries until attrition of some 46 workers fully kicks in.
McConnell believes that figure is greatly exaggerated. If the rolling retirement rate is instead 20 percent, for instance, the transitional funding could be $12 to $14 million and greatly diminish the business case.
As it is, the upfront, one-time transitional cost of the 50-percent option is estimated at $2,408,542 compared to the aforementioned $7,648,600.
Those who cared to read the entire administration report will know that the 50-percent solution was actually described as “appealing.” In discussing this option with finance staff prior to the July 12 meeting, I learned that operations managers prefer it to the take-no-prisoners option. For reporters and columnists who didn’t read the report, here is what administration said about the option I favoured:
The Hybrid model is similar to the one used in Winter Control and it has been successful there. Other municipalities have employed this model and have found it to be successful for the reasons noted below:
• Would maintain operational flexibility, i.e. number of yard-waste pick-ups could be easily changed, special clean-ups and events (e.g. floods, festivals).
• Able to respond quickly to changes in the Waste Diversion Act, i.e. possible legislated addition of an organics program.
• Could be considered the first step toward fully exiting the direct provision of the service if Council should decide to do so in the future.
• This would permit an easier transition from a partially contracted to a fully contracted model of service delivery through existing employee attrition over the next few years.
• More easily able to ramp back up to 100% waste and recycling collection services by city forces in the future if advantageous to the city due to dissatisfaction with the level of service provided by the contractor.
• Encourages competition between Union and Contractor with respect to efficiency, service level, service delivery, etc. (holds both parties accountable).
• Less disruption to the entire organization than the placement of displaced employees would cause with the 100 percent contracting-out option at this time.
Those who argue that the 100-percent option would not protect the public against a repeat of the 101-day garbage strike need to turn to Page 32 of the outsourcing contract. Clause 22.1 Strike Contingency Plan., states that one month prior to the commencement of service, the supplier must submit a strike contingency plan that will address alternative methods for the collection of waste so as to maintain the services in the event of a labour dispute.
For all those reasons, and one more, I believe the hybrid outsourcing model is the best option. The one further reason? That option might just reclaim a modicum of positive labour relations that no longer exist at City Hall.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Behind The Scenes With Lord Stanley
What a hoot!
Bridget Scheuerman, my wife Susan and I drove to Detroit Metro Airport with Royal Limousine Service owner Jason early Canada Day morning to pick up some real royalty – Lord Stanley’s Cup.
Maggie Durocher, executive director of the Windsor Parade Corporation, asked us to go fetch the cup. Stanley was travelling with Mike Bolt, one of the Hockey Hall of Fame’s four guys with white gloves who escort the most revered trophy in hockey around the world.
We met the 9:35 a.m. flight from Chicago to Detroit, snatched up Stanley and Mike, and sped down I-94 to the tunnel. After stopping for five minutes while the “beyond exhaustion” Mike picked up a case of Canadian and a blast of cologne at duty free, we arrived on the Windsor side to be greeted with a police motorcycle escort. Windsor’s finest turned on all the bells and whistles to lead us down Riverside Drive to the parade staging area at Devonshire and Assumption. We made it around 10:30, half an hour before the beginning of the first Canada Day Parade ever to traverse Wyandotte Street.
Joel Quenneville, coach of the Stanley Cup champion Chicago Blackhawks, was already there, fielding media interviews. When the other Guest of Honour arrived, Joel and Stanley were engulfed by fans of all ages, wanting to touch the cup and take photos of Joel, Stanley, Adam Henrique of the two-time Memorial Cup champion Windsor Spitfires.
Of course, there were plenty of photos taken of Stanley and the Memorial Cup sitting side by side on the back of a convertible.
The parade went off without a hitch, culminated by a ceremony at Fred Thomas Park, behind The Barn, where Joel captained the Spitfires several decades ago. Somebody shouted -- “Joel Quenneville for Mayor.” Windsor’s real Mayor Eddie Francis soon presented him with the key to the city.
I had the opportunity to thank the parade corporation, Bridget who is the co-ordinator of the Wyandotte Towne Centre BIA and the Olde Walkerville BIA, sponsors of the event. Few people can appreciate the toil behind the scenes required to put on one of these.
I also thanked Quenneville for getting the Cup to Windsor on Canada Day. After I got his cell number from Spit coach Bob Bougner, and made the request to him two days after his Stanley Cup triumph, he worked behind the scenes with the stewards of the Cup to make it happen. As thrilled as we were to have him and the Cup here, Joel was equally elated.
Quenneville told CBC Ontario that he was thrilled to bring hockey's holy grail back to Windsor.
"We've got a perfect day today and I think we had a great celebration in Chicago, when we won the Cup for the first time in 49 years," Quenneville said.
"And getting back and seeing some familiar friends here - everybody's excited, everybody's excited about seeing the Cup, and that makes people do amazing things."
I also expressed a debt of gratitude from the stage on Thursday to Mike Bolt for granting this huge favour for Windsor and our native son. Bolt has been in the middle of mobs of adoring fans at multiple Chicago events. After our parade, he and Stanley were whisked to Windsor Airport by 1 p.m. for a flight to his home town of Toronto.
Mike handed the Cup over to another guy in white gloves, who was accompanying Stanley to waiting arms in Saskatchewan the same day. Mike, who has not spent a holiday with his family for years, was looking forward to chilling out with his Molson Canadian. What a welcome relief, he told us, from the watered down brew that passes for beer in the U.S.A.
Bridget Scheuerman, my wife Susan and I drove to Detroit Metro Airport with Royal Limousine Service owner Jason early Canada Day morning to pick up some real royalty – Lord Stanley’s Cup.
Maggie Durocher, executive director of the Windsor Parade Corporation, asked us to go fetch the cup. Stanley was travelling with Mike Bolt, one of the Hockey Hall of Fame’s four guys with white gloves who escort the most revered trophy in hockey around the world.
We met the 9:35 a.m. flight from Chicago to Detroit, snatched up Stanley and Mike, and sped down I-94 to the tunnel. After stopping for five minutes while the “beyond exhaustion” Mike picked up a case of Canadian and a blast of cologne at duty free, we arrived on the Windsor side to be greeted with a police motorcycle escort. Windsor’s finest turned on all the bells and whistles to lead us down Riverside Drive to the parade staging area at Devonshire and Assumption. We made it around 10:30, half an hour before the beginning of the first Canada Day Parade ever to traverse Wyandotte Street.
Photo by Jack Rosenberg/In Play! Magazine
Of course, there were plenty of photos taken of Stanley and the Memorial Cup sitting side by side on the back of a convertible.
The parade went off without a hitch, culminated by a ceremony at Fred Thomas Park, behind The Barn, where Joel captained the Spitfires several decades ago. Somebody shouted -- “Joel Quenneville for Mayor.” Windsor’s real Mayor Eddie Francis soon presented him with the key to the city.
I had the opportunity to thank the parade corporation, Bridget who is the co-ordinator of the Wyandotte Towne Centre BIA and the Olde Walkerville BIA, sponsors of the event. Few people can appreciate the toil behind the scenes required to put on one of these.
I also thanked Quenneville for getting the Cup to Windsor on Canada Day. After I got his cell number from Spit coach Bob Bougner, and made the request to him two days after his Stanley Cup triumph, he worked behind the scenes with the stewards of the Cup to make it happen. As thrilled as we were to have him and the Cup here, Joel was equally elated.
Quenneville told CBC Ontario that he was thrilled to bring hockey's holy grail back to Windsor.
"We've got a perfect day today and I think we had a great celebration in Chicago, when we won the Cup for the first time in 49 years," Quenneville said.
"And getting back and seeing some familiar friends here - everybody's excited, everybody's excited about seeing the Cup, and that makes people do amazing things."
I also expressed a debt of gratitude from the stage on Thursday to Mike Bolt for granting this huge favour for Windsor and our native son. Bolt has been in the middle of mobs of adoring fans at multiple Chicago events. After our parade, he and Stanley were whisked to Windsor Airport by 1 p.m. for a flight to his home town of Toronto.
Mike handed the Cup over to another guy in white gloves, who was accompanying Stanley to waiting arms in Saskatchewan the same day. Mike, who has not spent a holiday with his family for years, was looking forward to chilling out with his Molson Canadian. What a welcome relief, he told us, from the watered down brew that passes for beer in the U.S.A.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Collection of Flood Related Material Is Ending
From the City of Windsor Newsroom
Notice to Residents
City of Windsor crews are nearing completion of the special garbage collection approved by City Council on June 7, 2010.
City crews have completed a sweep of the entire City and are responding to those homes that have registered with 311 for a special pick-up. Calls will continue to be taken by 311 for flood collection locations until 7:00 p.m. on Friday June 25.
Those residents previously registered with 311, who have not had their materials collected, are asked to please be patient and leave it at the curb.
Flood damaged material can also be disposed of at the Public Drop-Off Depot (corner of E.C. Row and Central Ave.). The Depot is OPEN Monday to Saturday from 8 am to 4:45 p.m. Normal tipping fees will apply.
We thank residents for their co-operation and patience during this time.
For information, please visit the Newsroom at www.citywindsor.ca or call 311.
Notice to Residents
City of Windsor crews are nearing completion of the special garbage collection approved by City Council on June 7, 2010.
City crews have completed a sweep of the entire City and are responding to those homes that have registered with 311 for a special pick-up. Calls will continue to be taken by 311 for flood collection locations until 7:00 p.m. on Friday June 25.
Those residents previously registered with 311, who have not had their materials collected, are asked to please be patient and leave it at the curb.
Flood damaged material can also be disposed of at the Public Drop-Off Depot (corner of E.C. Row and Central Ave.). The Depot is OPEN Monday to Saturday from 8 am to 4:45 p.m. Normal tipping fees will apply.
We thank residents for their co-operation and patience during this time.
For information, please visit the Newsroom at www.citywindsor.ca or call 311.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Tim Horton's Free Swim
Tim Horton's is offering free swim days at locations throughout Windosr, Tecumseh and Essex County. With the hot weather we've already experienced in Windsor this summer and what may be to come, this is a great opportunity to take the whole family for an afternoon of free fun, sponsored by Tim Hortons.
Atkinson Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Remington Booster Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Central Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Riverside Centennial Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Lanspeary Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Tecumseh Leisure Pool
June 30 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
July 7 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
July 14 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
July 21 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
July 28 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
Mic Mac Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
YMCA of Windsor and Essex County
July 1 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
July 4 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
August 1 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
September 6 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
Atkinson Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Remington Booster Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Central Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Riverside Centennial Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Lanspeary Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
Tecumseh Leisure Pool
June 30 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
July 7 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
July 14 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
July 21 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
July 28 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
Mic Mac Pool
July 5 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 12 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 19 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
July 26 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 2 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 9 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 16 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 23 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
August 30 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
September 6 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm
YMCA of Windsor and Essex County
July 1 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
July 4 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
August 1 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
September 6 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm
Friday, June 11, 2010
Depopulation Plan Needed For Windsor To Survive
By Alan Halberstadt
City of Windsor Councillor
Ward 3
As a mostly bogus debate rages over an amendment to Windsor’s Official Plan to halt the sacrifice of more agricultural land to unchecked commercial developments, new descriptors are surfacing in the urban planning world.
Windsor needs to heed the examples of rustbelt American cities such as Youngstown, Ohio; Flint, Michigan and sister city Detroit. These former manufacturing beacons are undergoing painful re-inventions of themselves focused on planning strategies that debunk the long-held belief that the outward growth of cities is good.
A librarian friend recently sent me an eye-popping article from Cityscape, a US government journal of policy development and research. The document heralds the implementation of “smart decline” for cities previously enamoured with “urban sprawl” and later “smart growth.”
Justin B. Hollander at Boston’s Tufts University looks at the increasing shrinkage of Flint and Youngstown and the strategies these cities are taking to “shrink effectively.” The article considers how “depopulation” creates different physical impacts, notably housing abandonment.
Youngstown is held up as a model of depopulation planning, having shrunk from 148,000 to 74,000 since 1950, when it was a bastion of steel making. “The city came to terms with its ongoing population loss and called for a better, smaller Youngstown focusing on improving the quality of life for existing residents, rather than attempting to repopulate the city.”
In Flint, devastated by the General Motors pullout in the 1980s, Hollander studied the changing housing-unit density in core neighbourhoods.
Some neighbourhoods changed to accommodate a smaller number of occupied houses while others did not, resulting in a lower quality of life for residents left behind, triggering strategies on how to customize land uses to right-size the physical features of a neighbourhood to match its smaller population.
Strategies embraced by smart decline proponents envision the conversion of bulldozed neighbourhoods to urban farming and greening.
In Detroit, the idea of widespread sideyard acquisitions of vacant lots has been introduced to reduce housing density, a process described as “blotting.” The urban fabric changed, not by city plan or regulation, but by actions of individual landowners in expanding their lots to mirror density patterns in suburbia.
The purchase of sideyards can expand properties and accommodate nice green space, gardening and even reforestation.
Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, facing the bankruptcy of his city, is moving on a controversial plan to identify blighted areas, bulldoze abandoned houses and cut off city services to neighbourhoods beyond the point of no return.
This would effectively, if not legally, shrink the traditional boundaries of Detroit, and force the state of Michigan to step in and claim a new budding greenbelt. Depopulation strategies such as this create an urban donut, featuring a shrunken core, surrounded by a buffer of green space and reclaimed agriculture. Beyond the buffer is the urban sprawl generated by “white flight” migration over the last half century.
This brings us back to Windsor. While our demographics are different, and we are not at the same stage as Youngstown, Flint or Detroit, there are troubling harbingers. Windsorites who drove to Caesars Windsor in April to see Bill Clinton might have caught a stomach-churning glimpse of urban blight east of the casino in the Glengarry Marentette district.
Twenty-year-old predictions that neighbourhoods adjacent to the casino would soon resemble Atlantic City are hauntingly coming true. A trip downtown or to Indian Road on the west side, will give you an even more gruesome picture of a city in decline.
It is time for city leaders to face facts, as Youngstown and Flint have done over the last 15 years, and accept the idea that the salad days of manufacturing wealth and rollicking urban growth are not coming back.
Instead of addressing these realities head on, Windsor City Hall is fending off demands by developers and lawyers with no civic conscience to plough up more farmers’ fields. The city’s planning department, working on a new Official Plan, has hard demographic evidence to support its position that no new greenfield lands need to be designated for commercial growth for the next five years.
A 2007 consultant study identified 1.7 million square feet of vacant commercial floor space in Windsor, 1.8 million square feet of potential additional floor space and 69.1 acres of vacant designated commercial land.
Developers and the mainstream media love to paint the planning department’s position as a “development freeze” that sends out the wrong message that Windsor is anti-business. This plays into their agenda of being able to hand-pick their own locations to build more far-flung big boxes and continue to cannibalize a core area with 20-percent vacancy rates.
When City Council debated the merits in March of requiring developers to pay for a market impact study to justify the location of large commercial development outside the current zoning designation, Michael Jagatic, the Development Chair of the downtown BIA, delivered a haymaker to the jaw of the urban sprawlers.
“Being thankful for any kind of development the city can get is like taking up smoking to lose weight,” he says.
These growth addicts, sadly including the Development Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce, dismiss the city’s offer to shop investors around to identify existing vacant sites for redevelopment, such as the former Home Depot next to Devonshire Mall.
Meanwhile, GTA municipality Markham is planning to freeze expansion onto prime farmland to establish a permanent food belt, heeding urban planning futurists who predict that only communities that can feed themselves will be sustainable.
Muddying the waters for Windsor is the last Stats Canada census in 2006, which showed a population increase of 8,000 to 216,473 from 2001. This census occurred prior to the stock market crash in 2008 and several other crippling blows tied specifically to Windsor’s economy and employment rate.
Anecdotal evidence tells us that migration out of the city has shrunk the population and a dearth of jobs has discouraged immigration. So we anxiously await the 2011 census. If that census shows depopulation, it will be evident that pulling back boundaries will be the only way for Windsor to survive.
Originally published in the May issue of BizX magazine. Reprinted with permission
City of Windsor Councillor
Ward 3
As a mostly bogus debate rages over an amendment to Windsor’s Official Plan to halt the sacrifice of more agricultural land to unchecked commercial developments, new descriptors are surfacing in the urban planning world.
Windsor needs to heed the examples of rustbelt American cities such as Youngstown, Ohio; Flint, Michigan and sister city Detroit. These former manufacturing beacons are undergoing painful re-inventions of themselves focused on planning strategies that debunk the long-held belief that the outward growth of cities is good.
A librarian friend recently sent me an eye-popping article from Cityscape, a US government journal of policy development and research. The document heralds the implementation of “smart decline” for cities previously enamoured with “urban sprawl” and later “smart growth.”
Justin B. Hollander at Boston’s Tufts University looks at the increasing shrinkage of Flint and Youngstown and the strategies these cities are taking to “shrink effectively.” The article considers how “depopulation” creates different physical impacts, notably housing abandonment.
Youngstown is held up as a model of depopulation planning, having shrunk from 148,000 to 74,000 since 1950, when it was a bastion of steel making. “The city came to terms with its ongoing population loss and called for a better, smaller Youngstown focusing on improving the quality of life for existing residents, rather than attempting to repopulate the city.”
In Flint, devastated by the General Motors pullout in the 1980s, Hollander studied the changing housing-unit density in core neighbourhoods.
Some neighbourhoods changed to accommodate a smaller number of occupied houses while others did not, resulting in a lower quality of life for residents left behind, triggering strategies on how to customize land uses to right-size the physical features of a neighbourhood to match its smaller population.
Strategies embraced by smart decline proponents envision the conversion of bulldozed neighbourhoods to urban farming and greening.
In Detroit, the idea of widespread sideyard acquisitions of vacant lots has been introduced to reduce housing density, a process described as “blotting.” The urban fabric changed, not by city plan or regulation, but by actions of individual landowners in expanding their lots to mirror density patterns in suburbia.
The purchase of sideyards can expand properties and accommodate nice green space, gardening and even reforestation.
Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, facing the bankruptcy of his city, is moving on a controversial plan to identify blighted areas, bulldoze abandoned houses and cut off city services to neighbourhoods beyond the point of no return.
This would effectively, if not legally, shrink the traditional boundaries of Detroit, and force the state of Michigan to step in and claim a new budding greenbelt. Depopulation strategies such as this create an urban donut, featuring a shrunken core, surrounded by a buffer of green space and reclaimed agriculture. Beyond the buffer is the urban sprawl generated by “white flight” migration over the last half century.
This brings us back to Windsor. While our demographics are different, and we are not at the same stage as Youngstown, Flint or Detroit, there are troubling harbingers. Windsorites who drove to Caesars Windsor in April to see Bill Clinton might have caught a stomach-churning glimpse of urban blight east of the casino in the Glengarry Marentette district.
Twenty-year-old predictions that neighbourhoods adjacent to the casino would soon resemble Atlantic City are hauntingly coming true. A trip downtown or to Indian Road on the west side, will give you an even more gruesome picture of a city in decline.
It is time for city leaders to face facts, as Youngstown and Flint have done over the last 15 years, and accept the idea that the salad days of manufacturing wealth and rollicking urban growth are not coming back.
Instead of addressing these realities head on, Windsor City Hall is fending off demands by developers and lawyers with no civic conscience to plough up more farmers’ fields. The city’s planning department, working on a new Official Plan, has hard demographic evidence to support its position that no new greenfield lands need to be designated for commercial growth for the next five years.
A 2007 consultant study identified 1.7 million square feet of vacant commercial floor space in Windsor, 1.8 million square feet of potential additional floor space and 69.1 acres of vacant designated commercial land.
Developers and the mainstream media love to paint the planning department’s position as a “development freeze” that sends out the wrong message that Windsor is anti-business. This plays into their agenda of being able to hand-pick their own locations to build more far-flung big boxes and continue to cannibalize a core area with 20-percent vacancy rates.
When City Council debated the merits in March of requiring developers to pay for a market impact study to justify the location of large commercial development outside the current zoning designation, Michael Jagatic, the Development Chair of the downtown BIA, delivered a haymaker to the jaw of the urban sprawlers.
“Being thankful for any kind of development the city can get is like taking up smoking to lose weight,” he says.
These growth addicts, sadly including the Development Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce, dismiss the city’s offer to shop investors around to identify existing vacant sites for redevelopment, such as the former Home Depot next to Devonshire Mall.
Meanwhile, GTA municipality Markham is planning to freeze expansion onto prime farmland to establish a permanent food belt, heeding urban planning futurists who predict that only communities that can feed themselves will be sustainable.
Muddying the waters for Windsor is the last Stats Canada census in 2006, which showed a population increase of 8,000 to 216,473 from 2001. This census occurred prior to the stock market crash in 2008 and several other crippling blows tied specifically to Windsor’s economy and employment rate.
Anecdotal evidence tells us that migration out of the city has shrunk the population and a dearth of jobs has discouraged immigration. So we anxiously await the 2011 census. If that census shows depopulation, it will be evident that pulling back boundaries will be the only way for Windsor to survive.
Originally published in the May issue of BizX magazine. Reprinted with permission
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
HST: Complex, Intricate And Occasionally Devious
By Alan Halberstadt, Ward 3 City Councillor
When Ontario Revenue Minister John Wilkinson came to town in early March to pitch the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), he started by noting that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has been bugging Dalton McGuinty’s government for five years to combine the 5% federal GST with the 8% provincial PST.
“The two governments have been tripping over each other figuring how to tax the same thing twice . . . how to tax the other guy’s tax,” said the Liberal Government’s power salesman cum sacrificial lamb. Wilkinson added that the province will save half a billion dollars getting rid of its PST auditing army, failing to mention that about 1,250 revenue ministry employees will be paid as much as $45,000 each in severance packages (totaling up to $25 million) even though many of them will henceforth transfer to the federal revenue service.
This is just one of the many deceptions of this byzantine (defined as highly complex, intricate and occasionally devious) tax.
Wilkinson trumpeted the HST as one component of major tax reform that will transform Ontario into “the most competitive jurisdiction in North America.” He mentioned cuts to income tax, making Ontario “the lowest personal income tax province in Canada.”
His underlings handed out a booklet entitled Ontario’s Tax Plan For Jobs And Growth. The booklet heralded Liberal tax proposals that would eventually save business almost $4.5 billion a year from replacing the PST with the HST, $2.4 billion annually from Corporate Income Tax cuts and nearly $1.6 billion a year from eliminating the Capital Tax.
What Wilkinson didn’t emphasize, of course, was the damage to business, beholden to their consumers, to be triggered by increases to goods and services under the HST that have been exempt under the PST. Staples like gasoline, electricity and heating will be subject to an additional 8 %.
Other commodities and services previously exempt include retirement fund management fees, dry cleaning, home service calls by skilled tradesmen, landscaping, home renovations, private resale vehicles, real estate commissions, message therapy, vitamins, fitness trainers, barbers, esthetician services, funeral services, legal fees and cigarettes.
More telling for Windsor, as a border city dependant on tourism, will be 8% hikes on hotel rooms, taxis, camping sites, domestic air, rail and bus travel, green fees for golf and tickets for live theatre with 3,200 seats or less.
Due to HST rebates provided to municipalities and non profits, Windsor City Council was originally told that the impact of the harmonized tax would be a wash. Later we found out that 8 % will be applied to recreational services, costing families and individuals who use city facilities, like parents of minor hockey players and figure skaters, a total of $500,000 to $600,000 a year.
City Hall subsequently calculated that the HST will also burden municipal taxpayers with an additional $1.6-million in annual capital budget expenditures. This is primarily due to consulting and construction contract payments now subject to full HST.
Since Wilkinson mentioned that the Ontario Chamber is overjoyed that businesses will now have to deal with only one tax regime (“the 7,000 pages of PST regulations that bedeviled you at midnight,”), I called Windsor-Essex Regional Chamber of Commerce Treasurer Ed Miles to get his view.
Ed is a straight shooter and no HST cheerleader. He acknowledges that the ease of bookkeeping is friendly to businesses liberated from overzealous provincial auditors and expensive appeals.
Businesses such as restaurants and Wal-Mart who already pay 13 percent will also benefit since they will now get rebates on the 8% PST portion as well as the GST portion.
Exporters who will now get full rebates are the “big winners,” says Miles. Local businesses are “moderate winners” depending on their products and services, and consumers are “moderate losers.”
Many consumers, however, believe they are big losers. Polls have showed that 74% of Ontarians oppose the HST. If they stop spending, businesses won’t get rebates on what they don’t sell.
Wilkinson, back in March, salivated over the three phased payments equaling $1,000 to be sent to annual families with net incomes under $160,000. This is designed to smooth the transition for consumers and businesses once they feel the jolt of HST hikes on July 1. In a year’s time, so the plan goes, businesses will have realized the income tax and HST rebate savings and passed them along to pent-up consumers ready to spend.
Lower income Ontarians will benefit from a range exemptions and tax credits. For instance, seniors now receiving $240 annual GST rebates will get another $260 for the provincial portion.
McGuinty is tapping into $4.3 billion in one-time transition funding from the feds to buy off Ontario consumers. The premier, however, recently confessed to the validity of an NDP study indicating that a family earning between $70,000 and $80,000 can expect to pay $722 more a year under the new tax. These costs will be in perpetuity while the $1,000 compensation cheques are for one year only.
It all adds up to “a huge win” for the provincial treasury, says Mills, noting the sweetheart deal of letting somebody else (the feds) collect and audit bills for you. “They could easily exempt utilities (from the HST). That’s not an oversight. That’s a tax grab.”
Given Miles’ suspicions that revenues will be “even better than what they realized,” the government should reduce the HST to 12%. “They should have done the right thing and lower the rate and still be ahead at the end of the day.”
That might even stop some of Windsor’s renowned bargain hunters from parading across the border to exploit Michigan’s 6% sales tax.
The bitter reality is that McGuinty needs the money after raising government spending over his first five years in office by $27.5 billion, or 40 %. Ontario’s total debt of $213.2 billion is “a ticking time bomb,” according to CIBC. With interest rates set to rise, McGuinty faces the grim prospect of paying an additional $500 million in annual debt servicing for every 1% boost in rates.
With all the claims and counter claims flying over its worthiness, measuring the HST’s impact after a year would be a good project for vigilant provincial ombudsman Andre Morin. Perhaps that explains the recent push by the government to get rid of this thorn in the side, and speculation that lifelong Liberal Susan Whelan of Essex County would replace him.
When Ontario Revenue Minister John Wilkinson came to town in early March to pitch the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), he started by noting that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has been bugging Dalton McGuinty’s government for five years to combine the 5% federal GST with the 8% provincial PST.
“The two governments have been tripping over each other figuring how to tax the same thing twice . . . how to tax the other guy’s tax,” said the Liberal Government’s power salesman cum sacrificial lamb. Wilkinson added that the province will save half a billion dollars getting rid of its PST auditing army, failing to mention that about 1,250 revenue ministry employees will be paid as much as $45,000 each in severance packages (totaling up to $25 million) even though many of them will henceforth transfer to the federal revenue service.
This is just one of the many deceptions of this byzantine (defined as highly complex, intricate and occasionally devious) tax.
Wilkinson trumpeted the HST as one component of major tax reform that will transform Ontario into “the most competitive jurisdiction in North America.” He mentioned cuts to income tax, making Ontario “the lowest personal income tax province in Canada.”
His underlings handed out a booklet entitled Ontario’s Tax Plan For Jobs And Growth. The booklet heralded Liberal tax proposals that would eventually save business almost $4.5 billion a year from replacing the PST with the HST, $2.4 billion annually from Corporate Income Tax cuts and nearly $1.6 billion a year from eliminating the Capital Tax.
What Wilkinson didn’t emphasize, of course, was the damage to business, beholden to their consumers, to be triggered by increases to goods and services under the HST that have been exempt under the PST. Staples like gasoline, electricity and heating will be subject to an additional 8 %.
Other commodities and services previously exempt include retirement fund management fees, dry cleaning, home service calls by skilled tradesmen, landscaping, home renovations, private resale vehicles, real estate commissions, message therapy, vitamins, fitness trainers, barbers, esthetician services, funeral services, legal fees and cigarettes.
More telling for Windsor, as a border city dependant on tourism, will be 8% hikes on hotel rooms, taxis, camping sites, domestic air, rail and bus travel, green fees for golf and tickets for live theatre with 3,200 seats or less.
Due to HST rebates provided to municipalities and non profits, Windsor City Council was originally told that the impact of the harmonized tax would be a wash. Later we found out that 8 % will be applied to recreational services, costing families and individuals who use city facilities, like parents of minor hockey players and figure skaters, a total of $500,000 to $600,000 a year.
City Hall subsequently calculated that the HST will also burden municipal taxpayers with an additional $1.6-million in annual capital budget expenditures. This is primarily due to consulting and construction contract payments now subject to full HST.
Since Wilkinson mentioned that the Ontario Chamber is overjoyed that businesses will now have to deal with only one tax regime (“the 7,000 pages of PST regulations that bedeviled you at midnight,”), I called Windsor-Essex Regional Chamber of Commerce Treasurer Ed Miles to get his view.
Ed is a straight shooter and no HST cheerleader. He acknowledges that the ease of bookkeeping is friendly to businesses liberated from overzealous provincial auditors and expensive appeals.
Businesses such as restaurants and Wal-Mart who already pay 13 percent will also benefit since they will now get rebates on the 8% PST portion as well as the GST portion.
Exporters who will now get full rebates are the “big winners,” says Miles. Local businesses are “moderate winners” depending on their products and services, and consumers are “moderate losers.”
Many consumers, however, believe they are big losers. Polls have showed that 74% of Ontarians oppose the HST. If they stop spending, businesses won’t get rebates on what they don’t sell.
Wilkinson, back in March, salivated over the three phased payments equaling $1,000 to be sent to annual families with net incomes under $160,000. This is designed to smooth the transition for consumers and businesses once they feel the jolt of HST hikes on July 1. In a year’s time, so the plan goes, businesses will have realized the income tax and HST rebate savings and passed them along to pent-up consumers ready to spend.
Lower income Ontarians will benefit from a range exemptions and tax credits. For instance, seniors now receiving $240 annual GST rebates will get another $260 for the provincial portion.
McGuinty is tapping into $4.3 billion in one-time transition funding from the feds to buy off Ontario consumers. The premier, however, recently confessed to the validity of an NDP study indicating that a family earning between $70,000 and $80,000 can expect to pay $722 more a year under the new tax. These costs will be in perpetuity while the $1,000 compensation cheques are for one year only.
It all adds up to “a huge win” for the provincial treasury, says Mills, noting the sweetheart deal of letting somebody else (the feds) collect and audit bills for you. “They could easily exempt utilities (from the HST). That’s not an oversight. That’s a tax grab.”
Given Miles’ suspicions that revenues will be “even better than what they realized,” the government should reduce the HST to 12%. “They should have done the right thing and lower the rate and still be ahead at the end of the day.”
That might even stop some of Windsor’s renowned bargain hunters from parading across the border to exploit Michigan’s 6% sales tax.
The bitter reality is that McGuinty needs the money after raising government spending over his first five years in office by $27.5 billion, or 40 %. Ontario’s total debt of $213.2 billion is “a ticking time bomb,” according to CIBC. With interest rates set to rise, McGuinty faces the grim prospect of paying an additional $500 million in annual debt servicing for every 1% boost in rates.
With all the claims and counter claims flying over its worthiness, measuring the HST’s impact after a year would be a good project for vigilant provincial ombudsman Andre Morin. Perhaps that explains the recent push by the government to get rid of this thorn in the side, and speculation that lifelong Liberal Susan Whelan of Essex County would replace him.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Mayor Ignores Cyclists
Written by Alan Halberstadt
A disconcerting element of the mayor’s annual speech to the Chamber of Commerce on May 14 was his continued snub of the city’s bicycling community. While boasting about all the construction happening in the city, Mayor Francis talked about road improvements, new sewers and watermains, new sidewalks and improvements to parks and green space.
There was no mention of the minimal amount of bike route improvements, such as the cycling lines painted on Gladstone and Lincoln, and the multi-use asphalt trail under construction as part of improvements to the E.C. Row South service road.
Later in his address, Mayor Francis waxed poetic about building a modern city with renewed and reliable infrastructure, new and exciting places to play, walk, learn and life . .. a clean, green city with more parks and more trees . . . a city that leverages our location as a gateway to international trade and commerce.
Perhaps this was simply an oversight by the speech writer, but it remains inconceivable to me that Mayor Francis’s vision of a modern city with modern transportation would overlook the surge in focus on bicycling in the greatest livable cities in North America.
The proof in the pudding in Windsor is the disgraceful amount of infrastructure money spent on adding to Windsor’s cycling network within the stimulus fund budget. Rather than double its paltry traditional sum of $400,000 over two years, Windsor used the matching senior government money to reduce its contribution to $200,000 in 2010-2011.
Those looking for some improvements to the disjointed cycling route on Riverside Drive are also faced with more disappointment. The city has agreed to another adjournment of the legal challenge by Bruck Easton and friends to the Riverfront Vista Project. Having already been put off last fall to this spring, the court date was recently pushed back another six months to late fall of 2010 by agreement of both parties.
A disconcerting element of the mayor’s annual speech to the Chamber of Commerce on May 14 was his continued snub of the city’s bicycling community. While boasting about all the construction happening in the city, Mayor Francis talked about road improvements, new sewers and watermains, new sidewalks and improvements to parks and green space.
There was no mention of the minimal amount of bike route improvements, such as the cycling lines painted on Gladstone and Lincoln, and the multi-use asphalt trail under construction as part of improvements to the E.C. Row South service road.
Later in his address, Mayor Francis waxed poetic about building a modern city with renewed and reliable infrastructure, new and exciting places to play, walk, learn and life . .. a clean, green city with more parks and more trees . . . a city that leverages our location as a gateway to international trade and commerce.
Perhaps this was simply an oversight by the speech writer, but it remains inconceivable to me that Mayor Francis’s vision of a modern city with modern transportation would overlook the surge in focus on bicycling in the greatest livable cities in North America.
The proof in the pudding in Windsor is the disgraceful amount of infrastructure money spent on adding to Windsor’s cycling network within the stimulus fund budget. Rather than double its paltry traditional sum of $400,000 over two years, Windsor used the matching senior government money to reduce its contribution to $200,000 in 2010-2011.
Those looking for some improvements to the disjointed cycling route on Riverside Drive are also faced with more disappointment. The city has agreed to another adjournment of the legal challenge by Bruck Easton and friends to the Riverfront Vista Project. Having already been put off last fall to this spring, the court date was recently pushed back another six months to late fall of 2010 by agreement of both parties.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Pet Waste Wrist Slap
by Alan Halberstadt
On Saturday, May 8, I was the central figure in a front-page Windsor Star story about a city ban on pet waste in garbage containers. I acknowledged to reporter Gary Rennie that I have been putting the kitty litter from the two family cats in garbage bags for several years.
After checking with the city’s environmental services division that a ban does indeed exist, and getting tips from the public, I purchased a big bag of Swheat Scoop at Pet Value. This natural wheat litter clumps and is flushable. I have been using it ever since, with one reservation. Swheat Scoop, at over $30 including tax a bag, is about seven times the cost of regular litter.
I have also buried a couple of regular litter bags outside, but that is not a sustainable solution, since too much of it will make digging in the garden quite unpleasant. I imagine it will also damage the fertility of the soil over time.
Another option will be to store the cheaper litter in a large double bag and drive it periodically to the E.C. Row drop-off centre. I have learned that pet litter is not banned from the landfill. It is banned from bags you put on the curb because of the threat of rotating garbage truck blades coming down on a “loaded” litter bag and spraying a collector.
Since the Star story, no-one has beaten up on me for not knowing the city bylaw. The reason for that, I suspect, is that the vast majority of citizens break the bylaw and have no intention of changing their habits. Like the sidewalk ban on cyclists, when there is no enforcement the behavior will continue.
The Environmental Services’ Waste Collection Calendar is also not 100-percent clear about pet waste. It does not come right out and say that animal waste and cat litter are banned, although it does make a suggestion that you “bury it in your own yard and/or place it in a container and bring it to the Drop-off Depot.”
With that said, I will still freely admit that ignorance of the law is no excuse for my own habits. As a City Councillor and co-chair of the Windsor-Essex Environment Committee I should be setting an example.
The Star story did provoke one humorous email from David Wonham, the irascible doc who ran for mayor in 2006, and continues to hold Council to account in its snail-like treatment of the Chimchuk bequest.
Here is Dr. Wonham’s email:
Alan, sorry to see in the Eddie Star today that you have admitted to being a Common Criminal.
Remember that "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" and, since you are dumping no less than TWO lots of Kitty Litter in the Municipal garbage system, you cannot hope to defend yourself on the principle of "de minimis not curat lex"
I will certainly come and visit you in Jail, and, if necessary, help you raise bail, if such is allowed in the major crime you have committed.
Am totally happy that our Authorities are finally clamping down on such henious and vicious criminal activity. You must be much relieved that the death penalty no longer exists in Canada.
Am glad that you are running again for Council, and since Criminals are now allowed to vote, there should be no reasons why Criminals should not be able to stand for elected office.
Am willing to bring you a cake (with a file in it) should you be incarcerated.
Please let me know how I can be of help.
David.
On Saturday, May 8, I was the central figure in a front-page Windsor Star story about a city ban on pet waste in garbage containers. I acknowledged to reporter Gary Rennie that I have been putting the kitty litter from the two family cats in garbage bags for several years.
After checking with the city’s environmental services division that a ban does indeed exist, and getting tips from the public, I purchased a big bag of Swheat Scoop at Pet Value. This natural wheat litter clumps and is flushable. I have been using it ever since, with one reservation. Swheat Scoop, at over $30 including tax a bag, is about seven times the cost of regular litter.
I have also buried a couple of regular litter bags outside, but that is not a sustainable solution, since too much of it will make digging in the garden quite unpleasant. I imagine it will also damage the fertility of the soil over time.
Another option will be to store the cheaper litter in a large double bag and drive it periodically to the E.C. Row drop-off centre. I have learned that pet litter is not banned from the landfill. It is banned from bags you put on the curb because of the threat of rotating garbage truck blades coming down on a “loaded” litter bag and spraying a collector.
Since the Star story, no-one has beaten up on me for not knowing the city bylaw. The reason for that, I suspect, is that the vast majority of citizens break the bylaw and have no intention of changing their habits. Like the sidewalk ban on cyclists, when there is no enforcement the behavior will continue.
The Environmental Services’ Waste Collection Calendar is also not 100-percent clear about pet waste. It does not come right out and say that animal waste and cat litter are banned, although it does make a suggestion that you “bury it in your own yard and/or place it in a container and bring it to the Drop-off Depot.”
With that said, I will still freely admit that ignorance of the law is no excuse for my own habits. As a City Councillor and co-chair of the Windsor-Essex Environment Committee I should be setting an example.
The Star story did provoke one humorous email from David Wonham, the irascible doc who ran for mayor in 2006, and continues to hold Council to account in its snail-like treatment of the Chimchuk bequest.
Here is Dr. Wonham’s email:
Alan, sorry to see in the Eddie Star today that you have admitted to being a Common Criminal.
Remember that "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" and, since you are dumping no less than TWO lots of Kitty Litter in the Municipal garbage system, you cannot hope to defend yourself on the principle of "de minimis not curat lex"
I will certainly come and visit you in Jail, and, if necessary, help you raise bail, if such is allowed in the major crime you have committed.
Am totally happy that our Authorities are finally clamping down on such henious and vicious criminal activity. You must be much relieved that the death penalty no longer exists in Canada.
Am glad that you are running again for Council, and since Criminals are now allowed to vote, there should be no reasons why Criminals should not be able to stand for elected office.
Am willing to bring you a cake (with a file in it) should you be incarcerated.
Please let me know how I can be of help.
David.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Eddie Is Outed
by Alan Halberstadt
The Eddie Star, as one pundit is calling it, missed the biggest story in town Monday night. By rejecting a bid to create a deputy mayor’s position, Mayor Francis declared that he is running for re-election.
In a report to Council from Council Services, it was revealed that the Municipal Act allows the sitting mayor to block the creation of a deputy mayor in the ensuing term of office. When I asked the mayor if he would support the possibility, he answered in the negative, trumpeting his supposedly democratic system of having all 10 Councillors rotate each month as acting mayor when he is absent.
Is there any doubt anymore, despite the weekly soap opera in The Star, that Eddie will officially declare his own coronation for another four years in early June?
What the mayor wouldn’t say Monday night is that this deliberately fragmented system of 10 acting mayors prohibits all Councillors from attending the agenda-setting meetings which he chairs weekly in a system he created when he became mayor.
Under this system, Mayor Francis has effectively buried or strategically delayed many reports near and dear to the hearts of other Councillors, but Monday night none of them had the parts to say so publicly.
When Percy Hatfield, Council’s parody of Don Cherry, made a motion to officially kill the deputy mayor idea, only Councillor Ken Lewenza and myself voted in the negative. Councillor Ron Jones put his head down and didn’t vote.
Several of the rest, while grumping privately about the mayor’s clandestine agenda setting, obviously believe that they can ride Eddie’s coattails to re-election in October. They seem content that their truckload of unanswered Council Questions, dating back to 2006, are left to fester.
So the whiff of oppression will continue to hang over Council Chambers, most likely for the next 4 1-2 years.
After Monday night, the electorate needs to consider the grave consequences of Eddie’s return to office, along with the current band of weaklings. We are talking oligarchy here.
As for me, I will continue, when time allows, to offer examples in this space of worthy issues initially brought forward by Councillors that have been kicked to the curb, or seriously mangled, in the mayor’s secret agenda-setting bunker.
Speaking of manipulating the agenda, the report explaining the relatively painless exercise to disconnect the mayor’s mute button, which I asked for before last Christmas, magically showed up on the supplementary agenda last Friday. The deputy mayor report was on the Communications agenda for Monday, May 10th. Both the sup and communication items are not revealed to Council and the general public until Friday evening, leaving virtually no time for public reaction or delegations to get up to speed and register as delegations.
Brave citizens like Al Nelman have railed against this chicanery many times in the past. I have also raised concerns, but the practice continues. This is another powerful reason why a second elected person, or more, should be allowed in the bunker.
Bylaw 185-2005, adopted unwittingly by Council, including myself, on July 11 2005 as a housekeeping item, added the following clause to the city’s procedural bylaw: The Council Agenda will be established through the Agenda Review Process, consisting of the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, City Clerk and other members of administration for the purpose of determining capacity for consideration at any given meeting.
I have recently learned the real meaning of this clause. Any member of administration, if invited, can enter this inner sanctum, while 10 elected officials are barred. How frightening is that?
The Eddie Star, as one pundit is calling it, missed the biggest story in town Monday night. By rejecting a bid to create a deputy mayor’s position, Mayor Francis declared that he is running for re-election.
In a report to Council from Council Services, it was revealed that the Municipal Act allows the sitting mayor to block the creation of a deputy mayor in the ensuing term of office. When I asked the mayor if he would support the possibility, he answered in the negative, trumpeting his supposedly democratic system of having all 10 Councillors rotate each month as acting mayor when he is absent.
Is there any doubt anymore, despite the weekly soap opera in The Star, that Eddie will officially declare his own coronation for another four years in early June?
What the mayor wouldn’t say Monday night is that this deliberately fragmented system of 10 acting mayors prohibits all Councillors from attending the agenda-setting meetings which he chairs weekly in a system he created when he became mayor.
Under this system, Mayor Francis has effectively buried or strategically delayed many reports near and dear to the hearts of other Councillors, but Monday night none of them had the parts to say so publicly.
When Percy Hatfield, Council’s parody of Don Cherry, made a motion to officially kill the deputy mayor idea, only Councillor Ken Lewenza and myself voted in the negative. Councillor Ron Jones put his head down and didn’t vote.
Several of the rest, while grumping privately about the mayor’s clandestine agenda setting, obviously believe that they can ride Eddie’s coattails to re-election in October. They seem content that their truckload of unanswered Council Questions, dating back to 2006, are left to fester.
So the whiff of oppression will continue to hang over Council Chambers, most likely for the next 4 1-2 years.
After Monday night, the electorate needs to consider the grave consequences of Eddie’s return to office, along with the current band of weaklings. We are talking oligarchy here.
As for me, I will continue, when time allows, to offer examples in this space of worthy issues initially brought forward by Councillors that have been kicked to the curb, or seriously mangled, in the mayor’s secret agenda-setting bunker.
Speaking of manipulating the agenda, the report explaining the relatively painless exercise to disconnect the mayor’s mute button, which I asked for before last Christmas, magically showed up on the supplementary agenda last Friday. The deputy mayor report was on the Communications agenda for Monday, May 10th. Both the sup and communication items are not revealed to Council and the general public until Friday evening, leaving virtually no time for public reaction or delegations to get up to speed and register as delegations.
Brave citizens like Al Nelman have railed against this chicanery many times in the past. I have also raised concerns, but the practice continues. This is another powerful reason why a second elected person, or more, should be allowed in the bunker.
Bylaw 185-2005, adopted unwittingly by Council, including myself, on July 11 2005 as a housekeeping item, added the following clause to the city’s procedural bylaw: The Council Agenda will be established through the Agenda Review Process, consisting of the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, City Clerk and other members of administration for the purpose of determining capacity for consideration at any given meeting.
I have recently learned the real meaning of this clause. Any member of administration, if invited, can enter this inner sanctum, while 10 elected officials are barred. How frightening is that?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Example One (Urban Blight)
by Alan Halberstadt
Citizens might remember the flap over an item which came to Council on January 25th 2010 in which administration poked holes in a Report On Blight by Toronto lawyer Stanley Makuch.
Mr. Makuch was hired after Mayor Eddie Francis took the unusual step of authoring a report to Council some 20 months earlier, on May 12, 2008. The mayor heralded Mr. Makuch’s glowing credentials on municipal matters and suggested that he be retained to identify a course of action to overcome the many legal, Municipal Act and building code obstacles facing the city in its desire to tear down privately-owned abandoned and dilapidated buildings.
Mr. Makuch submitted his report on Nov. 26, 2008, some 6 ½ months later. The building, licensing and enforcement departments, Police Services, the planning and legal departments took the next 14 months to critique the report before finally bringing their collective conclusions to Council.
In an exhaustive 11-page synopsis, administrators identified a truckload of shortcomings, the main point being that Mr. Makuch did not adequately define the term blight so that it could be used effectively in the courts. Mr. Makuch, I was told, used permissive laws applicable in the U.S. and Britain, but not in Ontario, in his draft blight bylaw.
On January 25th, when the critique came to Council and several Councillors railed about why we had wasted close to two years to bring forward a flawed report, Mayor Francis was abroad. On that night, I was told by City Solicitor George Wilkki that he anticipated the Makuch report would cost $50,000 to $60,000. I almost fell off my stool when I found out a few weeks later that the city was billed $83,000 by the Cassels Brock firm.
Since then, Chief Building Official LeeAnne Doyle has been leading an administrative team preparing a report on alternatives for the definition of blight, and identifying property standards targeted to blighted buildings.
This full report is expected to be back in Council’s hands in the fall, but progress has been made by our often unappreciated in-house staff. The city demolished a long-abandoned building at 641 Chatham after Council gave the go-ahead on March 29, and I am told that Council will be asked to approve demolition of more eysores in the near future.
During the wait for the Makuch Report to surface, Councillor Gignac and myself asked questions at Council meetings on its whereabouts. Mr. Wilkki told me the 14-month delay was caused primarily by backlogs in the legal department, but certain citizens speculated that administration agonized over prospects of embarrassing the mayor.
I bring this forward not to embarrass the mayor nor to question his motives in recommending Mr. Makuch. I am certain his intentions were good.
If, however, a deputy mayor had been in place to attend the agenda-setting meetings and push for urban blight to be a priority, this critical issue, with its profound impact on our city’s image, would not have been left to fester for two years.
Citizens might remember the flap over an item which came to Council on January 25th 2010 in which administration poked holes in a Report On Blight by Toronto lawyer Stanley Makuch.
Mr. Makuch was hired after Mayor Eddie Francis took the unusual step of authoring a report to Council some 20 months earlier, on May 12, 2008. The mayor heralded Mr. Makuch’s glowing credentials on municipal matters and suggested that he be retained to identify a course of action to overcome the many legal, Municipal Act and building code obstacles facing the city in its desire to tear down privately-owned abandoned and dilapidated buildings.
Mr. Makuch submitted his report on Nov. 26, 2008, some 6 ½ months later. The building, licensing and enforcement departments, Police Services, the planning and legal departments took the next 14 months to critique the report before finally bringing their collective conclusions to Council.
In an exhaustive 11-page synopsis, administrators identified a truckload of shortcomings, the main point being that Mr. Makuch did not adequately define the term blight so that it could be used effectively in the courts. Mr. Makuch, I was told, used permissive laws applicable in the U.S. and Britain, but not in Ontario, in his draft blight bylaw.
On January 25th, when the critique came to Council and several Councillors railed about why we had wasted close to two years to bring forward a flawed report, Mayor Francis was abroad. On that night, I was told by City Solicitor George Wilkki that he anticipated the Makuch report would cost $50,000 to $60,000. I almost fell off my stool when I found out a few weeks later that the city was billed $83,000 by the Cassels Brock firm.
Since then, Chief Building Official LeeAnne Doyle has been leading an administrative team preparing a report on alternatives for the definition of blight, and identifying property standards targeted to blighted buildings.
This full report is expected to be back in Council’s hands in the fall, but progress has been made by our often unappreciated in-house staff. The city demolished a long-abandoned building at 641 Chatham after Council gave the go-ahead on March 29, and I am told that Council will be asked to approve demolition of more eysores in the near future.
During the wait for the Makuch Report to surface, Councillor Gignac and myself asked questions at Council meetings on its whereabouts. Mr. Wilkki told me the 14-month delay was caused primarily by backlogs in the legal department, but certain citizens speculated that administration agonized over prospects of embarrassing the mayor.
I bring this forward not to embarrass the mayor nor to question his motives in recommending Mr. Makuch. I am certain his intentions were good.
If, however, a deputy mayor had been in place to attend the agenda-setting meetings and push for urban blight to be a priority, this critical issue, with its profound impact on our city’s image, would not have been left to fester for two years.
Deputy Watchdog
by Alan Halberstadt
For those who did not listen to the Council discourse on Monday night regarding a deputy mayor, Councillor Gignac asked if this would be a paid position. I answered no.
So those who oppose the move because of cost need to be assured that there would be no more cost. My primary reason for bringing this idea forward is to have a second elected person attend the weekly inner circle meetings that set the agenda for the following week. While consensus is reportedly used to determine which items come forward at lighting speed, which are delayed and which disappear without a trace, the fact remains that Mayor Eddie Francis makes the final call.
A deputy mayor would attend these meetings at no additional salary to lend a second set of eyes and ears to a process that one week can produce an overload of contentious items (see the agenda for the marathon meeting on April 19) and an underwhelming slate the following week (see agenda for April 26), which was handled in less than an hour.
Mayor Francis was out of town on April 26, and as per usual when he is absent, the agenda was paper thin.
Over the next little while it is my intention to put together a list of examples on how certain issues have won favor with the agenda-setting team of senior administrators and the mayor, while other issues have been kicked to the curb. Stay tuned.
Updated
Certain people (read cartoonist Mke Graston) are surmising that is my goal to become Deputy Mayor, since I posed the following Council Question on April 26:
Asks Council Services to report on the protocols and or procedural bylaw amendments and processes required to create a Deputy Mayor position beginning with the 2010-2014 terms of Council, based on the following options:
1. Council selects a Deputy Mayor annually.
2. The Councillor elected on October 25, 2010 with the highest percentage of the vote be named Deputy Mayor for the four-year term.
3. The four Councillors with the highest percentage of the vote be named Deputy Mayor in years one, two, three and four of the 2010-2014 term.
4. Should a Councillor or Councillors with the highest percentage of the vote decline the position, the offer would be made to the Councillor(s) with the next highest percentage of the vote.
Mayor Eddie Francis, in speaking negatively about this proposal, has tipped his hand that he will be running for re-election. His assumption that this is all about him is not entirely true. If he announces in his State of The City Address this month that he is not running for re-election, I would not withdraw my proposal. I believe it has merit no matter who sits behind the mute button.
Getting back to my point about my alleged lust to become Deputy, this would be highly unlikely given the results of the 2006 election. Among the 10 Councillors elected, I finished 6th. Councillor Fulvio Valentinis (37.51%) was first, followed by Councillors Ron Jones (37.41%) Jo-Anne Gignac (36.72%), Percy Hatfield (36.16%), Bill Marra (36.13%) Your Obedient Servant (35.46 %), David Brister (32.50%), Drew Dilkens (27.49 %), Ken Lewenza (24.61 %) and Carolyn Postma (22.69%).
Some people have suggested that it would be counter-productive to have somebody like Counc. Valentinis as Deputy because he is the current Mayor’s back. I don’t necessarily subscribe to this theory. While it is true that Fulvio tends to gravitate to where the power is no matter who is mayor, I have found him to be a fair-minded individual for the most part.
I believe other Councillors could go to him if they had a beef with the agenda setting and he could perhaps prevail upon the Mayor to give fair treatment to issues the Mayor is likely to dismiss as not relevant to his personal agenda.
Getting back to my chances of becoming Deputy, consider my first option whereby Councillors would appoint a Deputy each year, as the school boards do. With the current group, at least, the chances of my appointment would be slim and none. Making friends on Council, or cutting tradeoff deals, have never been objectives of mine.
It is my objective to lend more democratic balance to the process of Windsor’s governance and creating a Deputy position should be helpful to that end.
For those who did not listen to the Council discourse on Monday night regarding a deputy mayor, Councillor Gignac asked if this would be a paid position. I answered no.
So those who oppose the move because of cost need to be assured that there would be no more cost. My primary reason for bringing this idea forward is to have a second elected person attend the weekly inner circle meetings that set the agenda for the following week. While consensus is reportedly used to determine which items come forward at lighting speed, which are delayed and which disappear without a trace, the fact remains that Mayor Eddie Francis makes the final call.
A deputy mayor would attend these meetings at no additional salary to lend a second set of eyes and ears to a process that one week can produce an overload of contentious items (see the agenda for the marathon meeting on April 19) and an underwhelming slate the following week (see agenda for April 26), which was handled in less than an hour.
Mayor Francis was out of town on April 26, and as per usual when he is absent, the agenda was paper thin.
Over the next little while it is my intention to put together a list of examples on how certain issues have won favor with the agenda-setting team of senior administrators and the mayor, while other issues have been kicked to the curb. Stay tuned.
Updated
Certain people (read cartoonist Mke Graston) are surmising that is my goal to become Deputy Mayor, since I posed the following Council Question on April 26:
Asks Council Services to report on the protocols and or procedural bylaw amendments and processes required to create a Deputy Mayor position beginning with the 2010-2014 terms of Council, based on the following options:
1. Council selects a Deputy Mayor annually.
2. The Councillor elected on October 25, 2010 with the highest percentage of the vote be named Deputy Mayor for the four-year term.
3. The four Councillors with the highest percentage of the vote be named Deputy Mayor in years one, two, three and four of the 2010-2014 term.
4. Should a Councillor or Councillors with the highest percentage of the vote decline the position, the offer would be made to the Councillor(s) with the next highest percentage of the vote.
Mayor Eddie Francis, in speaking negatively about this proposal, has tipped his hand that he will be running for re-election. His assumption that this is all about him is not entirely true. If he announces in his State of The City Address this month that he is not running for re-election, I would not withdraw my proposal. I believe it has merit no matter who sits behind the mute button.
Getting back to my point about my alleged lust to become Deputy, this would be highly unlikely given the results of the 2006 election. Among the 10 Councillors elected, I finished 6th. Councillor Fulvio Valentinis (37.51%) was first, followed by Councillors Ron Jones (37.41%) Jo-Anne Gignac (36.72%), Percy Hatfield (36.16%), Bill Marra (36.13%) Your Obedient Servant (35.46 %), David Brister (32.50%), Drew Dilkens (27.49 %), Ken Lewenza (24.61 %) and Carolyn Postma (22.69%).
Some people have suggested that it would be counter-productive to have somebody like Counc. Valentinis as Deputy because he is the current Mayor’s back. I don’t necessarily subscribe to this theory. While it is true that Fulvio tends to gravitate to where the power is no matter who is mayor, I have found him to be a fair-minded individual for the most part.
I believe other Councillors could go to him if they had a beef with the agenda setting and he could perhaps prevail upon the Mayor to give fair treatment to issues the Mayor is likely to dismiss as not relevant to his personal agenda.
Getting back to my chances of becoming Deputy, consider my first option whereby Councillors would appoint a Deputy each year, as the school boards do. With the current group, at least, the chances of my appointment would be slim and none. Making friends on Council, or cutting tradeoff deals, have never been objectives of mine.
It is my objective to lend more democratic balance to the process of Windsor’s governance and creating a Deputy position should be helpful to that end.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Full Disclosure Please
By Alan Halberstadt
One component of the April 10 Windsor Star article on the remuneration of Mayor Eddie Francis raised my eyebrows. I was surprised to learn that he received $51,300.96 in 2009 for serving on three Enwin Utilities committees, two of them as chair.
The timing of this part of the article coincides with a formal Council Question I submitted on March 29th, asking Enwin Utilities, the Windsor Utilities Commission and other city-owned corporations to disclose salaries over $100,000.
The sunshine legislation does not require city-owned corporations or entities with less than 10 percent funding from the province to disclose big salaries. To this end, arms-length bodies headed by Mayor Francis – Enwin, WUC, the Tunnel and Airport – have tended to keep the salaries of their top officials under wraps.
When pressed last year, the Mayor Francis did release the salary of airport CEO Federica Nazzani, but I can see no reason why such executive salaries shouldn’t be freely disclosed annually along with the other public service sunshine lists.
Enwin and WUC, in particular, have come under transparency scrutiny in the wake of the latest campaign by WUC to raise water rates by double digit percentages over the next three years.
One particular bone of contention with me is the Memorandum of Agreement between WUC and Enwin that sees the water board pay the electricity board over $9 million per year in management fees.
Mayor Francis insists that this is a good deal since it avoids duplication in providing HR, financial and other services. Although the Ontario Energy Board vets these fees, the document providing the details has yet to be released to the general Windsor public.
If and when it is released, part and parcel of the disclosure should be a list of the top salaries paid to both Enwin and WUC executives.
In closing today, I would like to compliment diligent Star reporter Doug Schmidt for unearthing a comparison survey of the salaries of Ontario’s mayors, which should be a simple function but most certainly isn’t when you have to chase down all of the tack-ons to the base salaries, plus variations of taxable benefits and tax free components.
That said, one thing that wasn’t evident in a sidebar entitled Mayoral Earnings, is the car Windsor Mayor Francis gets as an extra benefit of his job.
One component of the April 10 Windsor Star article on the remuneration of Mayor Eddie Francis raised my eyebrows. I was surprised to learn that he received $51,300.96 in 2009 for serving on three Enwin Utilities committees, two of them as chair.
The timing of this part of the article coincides with a formal Council Question I submitted on March 29th, asking Enwin Utilities, the Windsor Utilities Commission and other city-owned corporations to disclose salaries over $100,000.
The sunshine legislation does not require city-owned corporations or entities with less than 10 percent funding from the province to disclose big salaries. To this end, arms-length bodies headed by Mayor Francis – Enwin, WUC, the Tunnel and Airport – have tended to keep the salaries of their top officials under wraps.
When pressed last year, the Mayor Francis did release the salary of airport CEO Federica Nazzani, but I can see no reason why such executive salaries shouldn’t be freely disclosed annually along with the other public service sunshine lists.
Enwin and WUC, in particular, have come under transparency scrutiny in the wake of the latest campaign by WUC to raise water rates by double digit percentages over the next three years.
One particular bone of contention with me is the Memorandum of Agreement between WUC and Enwin that sees the water board pay the electricity board over $9 million per year in management fees.
Mayor Francis insists that this is a good deal since it avoids duplication in providing HR, financial and other services. Although the Ontario Energy Board vets these fees, the document providing the details has yet to be released to the general Windsor public.
If and when it is released, part and parcel of the disclosure should be a list of the top salaries paid to both Enwin and WUC executives.
In closing today, I would like to compliment diligent Star reporter Doug Schmidt for unearthing a comparison survey of the salaries of Ontario’s mayors, which should be a simple function but most certainly isn’t when you have to chase down all of the tack-ons to the base salaries, plus variations of taxable benefits and tax free components.
That said, one thing that wasn’t evident in a sidebar entitled Mayoral Earnings, is the car Windsor Mayor Francis gets as an extra benefit of his job.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
