Subsidized Sprawl
The infrastructure spending announcement in Windsor is good for our economy but it also says something about the cost of sprawl. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against the spending and its not that I want to look a gift horse in the mouth but I think its important to make some points
According to the numbers in Saturday’s Windsor Star (in millions)
Windsor 11.4 million
———————-
Essex County .85
Essex 2.2
Kingsville 2.2
Pelee Island 1.8
Leamington 9.8
Lakeshore 4.5
Tecumseh 4.5
Total 25.85 million
Now, According to the 2001 census
| Essex County (excluding Windsor) | 166,573 | |||||
| Amherstburg | 20,339 | |||||
| Essex | 20,085 | |||||
| Kingsville | 19,619 | |||||
| LaSalle | 25,285 | |||||
| Lakeshore | 28,746 | |||||
| Leamington | 27,138 | |||||
| Pelee | 256 | |||||
| Tecumseh | 25,105 | |||||
| Windsor | 208,402 |
Now of course its this is a narrow minded way of looking at it as logic dictates that the county has more bridges and more infrastructure that needs fixing. However, isn’t that the point we’re trying to make about sprawl.
That this is yet another example of why sprawl will always require more expenditures to maintain its infrastructure. What I can’t explain why the affected residents aren’t made to pay for it on a per capita basis. Thats 11.4 million for 208,402 population and 25.85 million for 166,573 county residents all from provincial coffers even though each essex county residents pay the same provincial taxes
Now look, I’m not whining or saying that we shouldn’t work as a region, what I desperately want to point out is the hypocracy that additional infrastructure spending in our core is seen as a special interest handout while this type of uneven spending doesn’t register on anyones radar.
If we ask for a million to be spent on streetscaping and infrastructure in our core, if we ask for $100,000 to complete Community Improvement plans, both of which will see tens of thousands moving into the core, everyone is up in arms. But spend ten times that on county infrastructure and it is hailed as a success and you can hear the sound of crickets when searching for critism.
I must offer that the transit spending does help make up for this inequity but the purpose of that spending was to prioritize core areas, not cut their losses.
Couldn’t one argue that the province is subsidizing the true cost of infrastructure for Essex County Sprawl.
Again, I point out that we think nothing of spending $300,000,000 to expand an expressway in order to accomodate the growth of county population by tens of thousands of people but we absolutely balk at spending 0.1% of that to fund for community improvement plans and incentives that will help see the same amount of people move into our core
Councillors said to us that the free ride is over for those who benefit from municipal largess. That there needs to be a return on Investment. How will the return on investment by the above spending be judged????
Many believe that it is the downtown or the city core who is looking for a handout. Here is an example of where the true dollars are being handed out with no one batting an eye.
What am I missing????
Post Feedback
Urban sprawl has been around since Canada was created. There are numerous programs in Canada that subsidize rural living to keep people out in that area and to help them defer the costs associated with living there.
City dwelling has it’s issues too. Living in close proximity cause it’s own headaches, infrastructure problems and costs associated with dense population.
When the councillors stand up and yell that that the free ride is over, the collective part that is Canada is doomed. Everyone has that right to live anywhere in Canada and work anywhere in Canada. No where does it say you have to pay the highest taxes just to live in a region.
With respect to allocation of spending, does planting flowers os streetscaping show a return on investment? Does closing a library save money or does it deny citizens access to a betterment?
Money spent on movement of goods, services and people will never show the return on investment unless it is tracked accordingly.
Just a thought here, but if there were no roads built into Windsor, would it survive as a community? It may sound silly, however if previous mayors and council denied spending (can we see a relation yet?) or stalled projects, where would the industries in Windsor stand if at all?
Sprawl will always be expensive due to associated costs.
Doing nothing is the greates cost of all.
I don’t want to stop the spending but aren’t the county residents getting a free ride at the expense of core residents.
I pay the same share of provincial taxes as my county counterpart but 2/3 of the provincial infrastructure spending is in the county.
Of course the city benefits from the county and as you see, the city taxpayers pay for that. However, the county benefits from a healthy city core but as you see, they do not pay for that.
Look at Kitchener’s development fund, contributed to equally by the city and county but spent 3/4 dollars in the city. They realize that the county benefits from the healthy core as it is the main identifier of the region.
“Does streetscape show a return on investment?”
According to the International Downtown Association there is no investment that shows a higher return in revitalizing your downtown.
A revitalized downtown would attract people to the entire region, not only the core. When Americans come to the County, it is the core they have to drive through to get there. That is the first impression they have of our region. Regions are identified with by their core, thats simply a fact of life. Detroit finally realized that, when will we?
Mark,
I was using that as an example about the streetscape. When the city looks exclusively at the return a dollar spent makes, it takes it up to another level. The cost of following that dollar becomes a burden.
So after all the studies are done, that dollar would have to return back at least ten times what the city put out. Must the city show a positive return on everything just to be in the black?
The councillers were voted in to spend the city’s money wisely. They weren’t suppose to become capitalistic.
Yes the core can be developed, however city council is now looking at some kind of bylaw to fine people who urinate, vomit and spit in public. Is that a enforcement technique or are they trying to make money?
What kind of people are currently attracted to the core?
What defines the core?
Is it specifically one area or regions?
The major concern I note is the outside consultants that believe a Kitchener approach would work here or for that matter someone from Atlanta.
Windsor is itself a unique area. Why not treat it as such.
Build the core in a Windsor way and expressions that the residents have.
Although I agree that maintaining the current infrastructure is a necessity of our situation and that bridges are important but widening and building ever wider roads won’t solve the problem of sprawl, as we all know it just leads to more traffic and greater congestion aaaaaand more sprawl. The county communities have no where to go but to sprawl if they want to maintain or increase their tax base. With little land set aside for parks or industrial parks in those communities they have or are spending their tax base on maintaining the roads they have now and in the future, government handouts won’t come along every day to bail them out as it did last week. Last weeks handouts might be a one time thing, then they will be in trouble as this city is finding out.
So the free ride for drivers in both the city and county goes unabated, while sidewalks crumble, public transportation goes down the tubes, neighbourhoods deteriate. Living in the core of this city, I have what now appears to be a great luxury, I don’t have own one or two or three cars to get myself around nor my family. I walk to work! Those that have chosen to live in sprawlville have made a bad choice and I think that they should pay for that choice, in a tire tax (which McGuinty wants by the end of this year), kilometres driven carbon tax and a levy for maintaining the roads they use per vehicle, only then will some of the true cost of living in sub-urbia become relevant to them. Nobody in the city or county is paying in their taxes the true cost of the roads we use and they have come to expect the largest free buffet lunch in the world, that is totally detrimental to all other needs of this society. Michigan is in dire straits trying to maintain the status quo of their freeway system and is racking up huge debts just to maintain them let alone build new ones to nowhere WITHOUT RAISING TAXES!
kdduck is right sprawl has been and is Canada’s history and this article from today’s Globe and Mail doesn’t make matters any easier;
New Immigrants chose the Suburbs
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080331.wimmig31/BNStory/National/home
Larry Silani a week ago Saturday, stated that he can’t make LaSalle a true “city,” as the other mayors of the other county communities can’t make their towns “cities” Any chance that they could have become more urban has passed thirty years ago when their building boom started, unplanned, unregulated and underserviced. They will be paying in the future for their mistakes for letting unbridled development to occur but we in the city will by our taxes keep their delusions alive.
Mark, have you noticed like I have noticed that just not the core of this city but “old” Windsor from Sanwich Towne to Lauzon road and north of E.C. Row is being ignored or abandon for development or consideration by the city. That the focus for this city appears to be in the east, from Lauzon to Tecumseh’s border. Is that the area that Eddie lives in? Is he building a private kingdom for himself when he doesn’t run in the next election and will have no reason to drive into “Old Windsor” when he goes?
it doesn’t matter how many studies we can present, or how many guest speakers or consultants we bring in, this mayor and city council don’t care, they live in sprawlsville and that’s all they know or will ever know. There is nothing beautiful or quaint about Forest Glade or the developments that have gone up east of them, you can’t walk anywhere in them, just ask the teens that are stranded there!
On ROI’s, like you mentioned above about the core, that the return of investment can’t be measured, there is one thing in this city that can..your public library. Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and many more states have done ROI’s on their public libraries in the last couple of years and have surprisingly found that their public libraries return on average eight dollars for every dollar invested into direct economic impact on their communities.
Our central library building on Ouellette is thirty years old and is out of walking distance of the core, you want a great anchor for the core, build a new central library, this is what many U.S. cities have discovered in the last ten years in their deteriating cores, build it,they will come. It is “a place” for all people unlike anything else a city can build for itself. But we know the current story of this city and its libraries and the core.
Mark, just to be clear, I have no arguement for your points, my arguement lies with the elected officials who decide.
Last time I checked the province was not responsible for core areas.
Talk to your hero Eddie Francis.
Mike,
How convenient for the province to claim that they’re not responsible.
But wait, Actually the province is fully responsible for municipalities.
One way the province could contribute by ensuring that no new bldgs are being built without reusing core areas, this would include educational facilities and office space. Thats just one way, there are many, many others that are only limited by your imagination..
I don’t think this is about the mayor. I kind of figure that people like you must be big George Bush Fans, with a Mantra of “You’re with the Mayor or against him”.
Guess what, when the mayor supports great policies, I’m with him. When he supports something I oppose, I’m not with him. In your world that makes me a “man without a country”. In my world it makes me a subscriber to common sense
Since I rarely comment about the border as it is not my area of expertise this puts me in the “with” category more than the “not with”. I also support twinning a bridge but oppose some of their previous proposals, this also makes me a “man without a country”.
Do I get upset that my star shaped peg doesn’t fit into other peoples’ square holes. Nope.
Municipalities have been struggling with this issue since the end of WWII. No - Canada has not been “Sprawl”-based since it was created. There’s a difference between urban sprawl and the activities that Sir Alexander Mackenzie spent his free time pursuing. The term “sprawl” denotes unstainable development at the detriment of others and (partially) funded by them. It is not mearly exploring the vast, uncharted wilderness.
Canada has been a hotbed of sprawl purely because of its geography. The “cancer” that humankind has been accused of being tends to ooze out and occupy land and resources until it is stopped, and we Canadians haven’t been stopped yet. There’s a simple reason why Western European countries haven’t sprawled like we have - because we can’t breathe underwater.
County residents have as much of an interest in our development patterns as we do. When we soil our own nests and move out to find new ones, we invade their space. And it is their space. I am no more a “Country Guy” than Jerry Seinfeld, and I feel like a fish out of water when I am there. By building better cities we protect our agri-cultural resources by stemming the tide of sub-urbanites who wish to flee the city. County residents should back policies that strengthen our urban cores in an effort to strengthen their own communities.
How much are we spending on this experiment. Read this older post.
Yes excellent idea - restrict the property rights of individuals to build what they want within legally zoned areas.
Funny, wasn’t it you who supported the arena being built near Tecumseh - a city decision? The province must withdraw their financial support forthwith!
By the way, where is the Bedroom Depot moving to? Downtown?
Nobody from Scaledown endorsed the decision to build the arena near Tecumseh. You are mistaken.
Chirs, you’re dead wrong.
A farm field is simply a sub-division that hasn’t been built yet.
Dead Wrong? Lucy - you’ve got some ’splainin’ to do!
Ahh - Mark Boscariol specifically stated he did not oppose it.
First off, Not opposing an east end arena it is a lot different from supporting it. Always oppose, never propose is a mantra I will not follow. I spend my volunteer time trying to support items and accomplish items and I find it a waste to spend time simply opposing things
There were problems with having one on the city centre west lands and I didn’t support tying up that land for an arena that would never fit on it.
For the record, I did actually support in writing the arena going where the former barn went with much of the glengarda affordable housing torn down.
Secondly, Just in case you’re thinking of affecting me by not shopping at Bedroom Depot. I have not been an owner there for over a year and a half. Sold out in ‘06 to focus my attention on my family and downtown Windsor.
However, I have already said that before 2001 I knew very little about urban planning, my 11 years in big box retail has taught me quite a bit and my entry into downtown in 2001-2 was when my urban planning experience began. Heck, if you really want to expose me, theres more. Recently I supported an environmental cause when I actually owned a chrome plating factory until 1998.
I’m proud of my background as it a tremendous asset to understand those different backgrounds when advocating for the things that I do.
Next
I don’t advocate for restricting the rights of people to build what they want in properly zoned areas. However in this case of the Banwell development, the land was zoned agriculturally and was requesting rezononing.
Secondly, We at scaledown are having an open discussion about what type of commercial development is appropriate. We all believe in mixed use walkable urbanism. In many other cities (mostly the ones where people WANT to live) where land is zoned commercial they actually do not allow the type of commercial development we allow in Windsor
Mike,
Welcome to scaledown I don’t recognize your name from any of the other discussions.
It doesn’t matter to me if you agree with us. It is more important that you are willing to be a part of the dialogue. Don’t be put off by Mark, he lives/loves to argue that’s how I ended up getting involved with these guys
Obviously you feel that you have something to add. It is probably because you recognize that there is something wrong with our city. There is and we want people to think about what is wrong and put it out there.
However, let’s try to keep the conversation positive. Look forward to reading your thoughts on my next post.
And I actually really thought I was being positive on that last one and not argumentative.