ScaleDown Radio, April 6, 2009
Andrew and Mark, in a show that has finally proven to me that I am indeed replaceable, talk about the up-and-coming Ward Boundary Review slated for April 16th and 17th, the possibilities of a downtown farmers market, the Art Gallery of Windsor’s plea for funds tonight and the proposed drainage ditch-er, canal.
We wrote about the Ward Boundary Review on the blog today as well, and all the links and information are available on that page, since I really don’t want to reprint it all again here. These proposed changes will affect our city for generations, so go find out more and attend the public information meetings!
A revived Downtown Market? It’s an idea that’s been tossed about for years and it’s coming before council again. John Sheridan of the downtown residents association, is advocating for the old bus station to be renovated into an open-air farmers market - an amenity that would only increase the viability of our downtown to support a growing residential base and a more diverse local economy.
Is the Art Gallery of Windsor being set up for failure? Does our city councillors understand the importance of this institution when members say that municipalities shouldn’t be funding places like the Art Gallery, and mocks them for their lobbying efforts? Wouldn’t a vibrant gallery work with an active aging facility? Is the cities dreams of a downtown canal possible with a vacant Art Gallery next door? Does the county have a vested interest in it’s survival? We’ll find out tonight when our illustrious leaders decide the fate of this institution at tonights council meeting.
Speaking of the downtown canal, Mark and Andrew take off the gloves and get down to it. Mark’s “undying devotion” to the mayor seems to be teetering on the brink, as he changes his tune a bit by wanting to see the details of the feasability study. You can’t get Mark discussing Windsor’s downtown without lighting a fire under Andrew’s ass, and it was only a matter of time that the two begn their rumble. I can’t describe their discussion adequately, so you’re going to have to listen on your own.
These guys crack me up! Must hear radio at it’s best!
Music:
Enjoy!
Want to download it instead and listen to it at your leisure? Click here.
ScaleDown Radio is broadcast live every Monday from noon until 1:00 on CJAM 91.5 FM, redefining radio in Windsor and Detroit.
Post Feedback
Don’t know if I’d pull the trigger on “replaceable” just yet, Chris. Usually a good show regardless of who is hosting, but a couple of comments today (from Mark, i think) struck me as counter productive.
It seems to me that Windsor needs Essex County residents (such as myself) just as much as we need Windsor. I spend my entire work day and a good chunk of my free time in Windsor. I also spend a lot of money in Windsor. I happen to pay taxes in Lakeshore.
I feel as strongly about rebuilding the city as much as most Windsorites. I love going downtown and want to see the core strengthened. I have strong opinions on the canal, the location of the arena, the transit system and other things. Windsor needs a bit of an overhaul, no doubt about it. I think, however, that Windsor will have to work with the rest of Essex County in order to complete this overhaul. No city is an island, etc.
My question then, is why waste time calling county towns “podunk” and “boring” because they didn’t vote to subsidize AGW? Why blame Lasalle & Tecumseh for providing attractive living conditions? The option to live outside of Windsor will always exist. Don’t accuse the county municipalities of stealing residents and tax dollars. Instead, ask what Windsor can be doing to make itself more attractive to existing and potential residents.
I know that Scaledown already asks that question but really, you can’t worry about what the County does or does not do. Each of those communities has its own agenda, its own history and its own civic pride.
Don’t blame other communities for being nice places to live. Make Windsor that much nicer.
You’re right, Terry. SD’s main goal has always been to elevate Windsor’s quality of life/standard of living to the point where it makes living elsewhere the obviously wrong decision.
One thing that I’ve come to learn about this communications medium we’ve decided to tackle, is this - making boneheaded comments usually equate to a better understanding of the issue from all sides.
Boneheaded comments usually inspire heated debate and gets both sides thinking about details that usually aren’t brought up without those initial ill-thought out remarks. This goes for both the blog and the radio show.
Nonetheless, you are right. Calling people and their personal decisions names doesn’t win us any fans, and our goal is to get people thinking - which they won’t do if they tune out.
I understand Mark and Andrew’s frustration about the symphony, though. For county councillors to rebuke an arts organization that actually packs up and heads out into the county to perform for it’s citizens is sort of a slap in the face to the symphony. Unfortunately, decisions like these only leaves each deciding board to play “protectionist” and ignore their neighbours.
The region could be so much better than the sum of it’s parts, and it’s too bad that certain municipalities pick up their balls and go home. It hurts us all, though we’ll continue to advocate for Windsor.
Terry - For the record it was me that said those things… While I love to dump on Mark, and love to see him get heat over his generally dumb ideas, I have to take the credit on this one.
I look at it this way. If I woke up tomorrow and a “Berlin Wall” style border was erected around Windsor’s boundaries, my life would continue without any disruption. I never go to the burbs, there’s nothing there for me. Everything I need is in my city. However if you woke up in LaSalle or Tecumseh on the outside of that wall, all you would have is your cheap taxes.
I don’t mean to whip up an “us vs. them” sentiment with respect to Windsor vs. suburbs, but that’s honestly how I personally feel.
You (not you specifically) want to live in an area with lower taxes, but come play in the city. Use our amenities without paying to support them. Enjoy the Symphony, but not support it with your taxes, Visit the Art Gallery, but not support it with your taxes, Go to a Spitfires game at an arena built with my tax dollars, drive on my roads to your suburban home, that my taxes pay to maintain, etc…
I personally feel the worst thing that happened in the Greater Windsor Area in the last 50 years, was that LaSalle, Tecumseh & St. Clair Beach, weren’t amalgamated into Windsor. There’s no reason for there to be municipal boundaries where they are. You yourself proved above how tied to Windsor all the bedroom communities are….
From my point of view, I am against sprawl, and the damage it does to our planet. People driving from Emeryville to Windsor in their polluting Escalades aren’t helping anything. The goal of Scaledown as I see it is to advocate for a better Windsor, to push for denser, more closely knit urban neighbourhoods. There is nothing in the suburbs I can see that makes Windsor a better place.
With that being said, Chris is right, and if you are a usual listener, you’ll know that we generally don’t resort to name calling (with the exception of giving to the Mayor and Council)…
hmm..that farmers market idea at the bus depot sounds reeeally familiar
“You (not you specifically) want to live in an area with lower taxes, but come play in the city. Use our amenities without paying to support them. Enjoy the Symphony, but not support it with your taxes, Visit the Art Gallery, but not support it with your taxes, Go to a Spitfires game at an arena built with my tax dollars, drive on my roads to your suburban home, that my taxes pay to maintain, etc…”
That’s just (for better or worse) the nature of cities, no? True, my taxes don’t go to support these things. My paycheck, however, does. I’m sure the folks at the Coffee Exchange don’t value my business any less because I live in the county. I’m sure the $20 bill in the till at Phog (that used to be in my pocket) won’t be separated from the rest because it came from a county dweller.
Would you rather I spent all of my money where I lived? Or in London or Toronto rather than Windsor? You’re casting county residents in a bad light. It’s as if we all conspired to take advantage of Windsor’s resources without footing the bill. Sounds a little sinister.
“There is nothing in the suburbs I can see that makes Windsor a better place.”
How about the people who visit your city? What about county residents who own Windsor businesses? Don’t they make Windsor a better place?
I would also question the use of the Berlin Wall analogy. Did West Berliners’ lives “continue without disruption”? Nope. And, much as you’d like to think Windsor can be self-sufficient, it can’t be. You’d need an airlift sooner or later. Your vision of Scaledown’s goal and a good relationship with the county needn’t be mutually exclusive.
I’m not trying to be a county slappie, believe me. I agree with your views on sprawl and the environment. I consider myself a treehugger yet my job requires me to drive a diesel truck around all day and the hypocrisy of it nearly kills me. I’ve lived in Windsor before and I’ll probably live in Windsor again. I just think that a good relationship with the county is crucial to the prosperity of both.
Anyway, enough of my bitching. I think the heart of Scaledown (and those involved) is in the right place. As Chris stated, comments inspire debate and further discussion and it’s always good to get other points of view.
Thanks for your efforts to date and keep up the great work.
Terry, here is something to think about. Going forward you could be asked to directly pay for the suburban life.
From:
Green dreams, unplugged
Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090404.wcover04/BNStory/International/?pageRequested=4
Payback time
Environmentalism is not the only phenomenon driving the shift to greener cars. Economics is playing just as big a role. Once the recession ends and governments turn to paying off their newly accumulated debt, it will play an even bigger one.
“Governments are increasingly looking at road users as a potential source of revenue,” explains Mario Iacobacci, the Conference Board’s director of transportation and infrastructure policy.
“In the next three to five years, they are going be scrambling to find extra sources of revenue. They will be looking at user charges to fill the budget gap, at the same levelling the playing field between cars and public transit.”
Mr. Iacobacci estimates that in Canada car owners currently pay only 40 per cent of the cost of driving, when transportation infrastructure, carbon emissions and accidents are taken into account. This free ride is about to end.
Indeed, it already largely has in Europe, as evidenced by congestion charges in London and Stockholm, massive gas taxes in most countries and toll roads across the continent. Little wonder greener and smaller cars are the norm across the pond.
This is something that’s been bandied about (internationally) for years. I think a system like the one in London would be great for generating revenue but the transit infrastructure would need to be greatly improved first.
IF Windsor had an expanded and more efficient transit system and IF there was some sort of reliable public transit getting people to and from the suburbs (like London or, closer to home, Toronto), I would have absolutely no problem paying a toll to bring a car into the city. In fact, I wouldn’t have to bring a car into the city, would I? Until these things occur, however, it’s not going to happen. Having lived in Toronto, I think that area is much closer to being able to implement such a scheme. GO Transit, VIVA and Mississauga Transit all feed the TTC. The infrastructure is there, it just needs some reinforcement.
As for toll roads, I’m all for ‘em as long as the money goes to road maintenance, bike routes and alternative energy programs.
BTW, I don’t see that as paying for suburban life. I see it as the right thing to do, regardless of where I live.
Terry, this is being talked about in Ontario –faced with massive deficits to payback in a few years. Whether the infrastructure is in place or not will not matter. Whether it is a high-density area or low-density area will not matter. We will all be asked to internalize the full cost of our transportation choices. That means more than twice the cost now. Without accounting for the energy increases.
I agree with you that it is a good policy. But we need to be preparing for this. We need to be making the right infrastructure investments. Transit. Urban intensification. Less suburban. Frankly, we need to convince people like you to move back to Windsor – closer to where you work and play.
Having lived abroad in Japan and also comparing us to places like Europe - one of the smartest decisions to be made would be to increase the gas tax and put the revenue towards mass Transit infrastructure. It is a double-sided solution - discourage people from driving while bolstering the robustness of mass transit. Right now 2 cents of every liter of gasoline sold in Ontario is divied up between transit associations in the province based on Ridership numbers and to a lesser extent population. At this rate, Transit Windsor recieved $3.8Million this year. Imagine what a 200% increase could do.. gas prices would only increase by 4 cents, and transit windsor’s capital funding would jump to $11.4Million
Tim, since tax revenues are distributed by ridership. Imagine if we, anticipating an increase in funding per ridership, were taking the necessary steps now. Imagine an all out attack on increasing ridership and changing the pattern of development – how smart would we look in a few years.
Just a quick note about that canal joke. Comparing San Antonio or Milwaukee or Oklahoma with Windsor is wrong. Each of these cities has 3X’s plus the population that Windsor does. If you think Americans are going to flock to Windsor to see 3 blocks of water when they don’t come to see use our waterfront parklands then boy that $50 million plus sure is a gamble. We should spend it at the casino we would probably get a better return.
I do agree with Mark though that we do not need even more social housing in the core. As it is we have enough of it that surrounds our downtown. It is also another reason our downtown suffers. Look at any city and tell me that their downtown survives if it is surrounded by social housing and the ills that go with it (IE: ghettoization of low income people).
Mixed use areas will do more for low-income people than to stuff them in a condensed area to survive on their own. It sure hasn’t worked for any of our project areas (Glengarry being one of the worst with some of the highest crime in the city). Shouldn’t we help these people instead of dismissing them?
Mark, you were a big proponent of the marina. Why not now? We need to lobby for the urban village as proposed not some hair-brained scheme canal idea or yet more social housing.
Oh yeah! Go downtown market go! We are desperate for one and need it now!
Terry, you speak of the city county divide as a natural one. But it is unique to us. Kitchener Waterloo region shares these types of costs equally. London amalgamated it’s region. T.O. And Ottawa have cultural institutions funded by the province and the Feds . Windsor is an ungodly creation of division
Mark — I guess it feels natural to me because that’s all I’ve ever known. (Lived in Windsor or the county since ‘82). Toronto had the same feel when I grew up there (416 vs. 905) but the 905 communities are cities in their own right…a little different than down here.
As for funding…it’s frustrating. How is it justified? Population? Location of the houses of government? Are our local politicians just not fighting hard enough for our piece of the pie? I wish I had the answers…
Terry, you were right to point out the mistake of my criticism of the county when the real culprit is the province which allows this situation to exist. I wrote the minister responsible at the time John Gerrettson who said basically that he would not impose a situation on our area if our local politicians didn’t want it.
Problem is that municipalities exist at the whim of the province and no one seems to remember that. However, our area seems to be a throwback. We have citizens who actually don’t realize that the failure of our core will result in the failure of our region. They can stare detroit history directly in the face and say but somehow they must think that when we hollow out our core it will be different.
Hopefully there will be an accelerated awareness of the future.
Just so you know the Brookings institute did a study where they showed that housing prices dropped less in regions with a strong core than they did in regions with a weak center. We have the lowest housing prices in the country, d’ya think anyone will see a correlation?
Dave my position change came when council decided that the canal feaibility study was a replacement for a downtown strategy instead of a project that relied on a comprehensive downtown strategy.
Then I went to the experts who confirmed those suspicions. That without a plan to leverage this project it would not create any benefit outside it’s boundaries.
However I’d still support it if it was part of a bigger plan
Finish the sustainable downtown plan
I just think this was worthy of repeating if anyone is listening
Dave my position change came when council decided that the canal feaibility study was a replacement for a downtown strategy instead of a project that relied on a comprehensive downtown strategy.