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.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
