Fighting Canals with Process vs. Logic
Council needs to vote for the Canal Plan Tuesday, Hell Yes! Not voting for it would kill the project before the public gets a chance to fully vet it, that would be the true Democracy Killer
Remember, Although I supported the Canal Plan in Principal, I agreed with the six councillors who withheld their vote. They deserved to see the plan, but now they have. Not only that, they’ve even been able to get significant community feedback (although far more public vetting still needs to occur)
Some say that more process is needed before council is even allowed to vote for funding application, coincidentally, those same people also oppose the canal. By preventing a vote on Tuesday they would effectivel kill funding for the project before the public gets a chance to understand it.
They can make the outrageous claim that democracy has died, boo hoo hoo. Thats just plain wrong, our elected officials must vote on this plan as always and they will be held accountable to voters in a year and a half, well before any canal construction will be underway. The entire public can view the plan, it has been extensively discussed on this blog and others with a Record amount of people posting comments. The Windsor Star also has had a tremendous amount of comments regarding their articles on the Canal Plan. Of course we need more public vetting but there’s plenty of opportunity for that
Any councillor who wishes to make an informed decision on the canal funding application has the information. The question now will become whether to pursue the execution of that application.
Even though I support the Canal Plan in Principle, I may very well work to stop its execution if the valid concerns that I have presented have not been addressed. I believe the success or failure of the Canal depends solely on how it is implemented and with what other measures it is implemented with.
Those who do not want it voted on Tuesday assert that once it is federally funded it will be rammed down our throats. Only if we let it. However I assert their true motive is to simply kill this project dead before it even gets publicly vetted. That is the true democracy Killer
May 19th will be business as usual, elected and informed councillors making difficult decisions for the City of Windsor
Post Feedback
“They can make the outrageous claim that democracy has died, boo hoo hoo. Thats just plain wrong, our elected officials must vote on this plan as always and they will be held accountable to voters in a year and a half, well before any canal construction will be underway.”
Sorry Mark, but, you are wrong. If council decides to vote for adding this to the infrastructure wish list and it receives funding, construction must be fully completed within 2 years or they may have to pay back the entire amount.
Also, if they decide to go forward and ask for the funding, you know full well that if they receive the money they would not leave it on the table, even if the project doesn’t have public approval.
“construction must be fully completed within 2 years or they may have to pay back the entire amount.”
Sooo, big deal. They have to pay it back. If they don’t apply, they don’t get the funding and Windsorites never get to give feedback towards the project one way or another.
“you know full well that if they receive the money they would not leave it on the table, even if the project doesn’t have public approval.”
NO, I do not Know that full well. What I do know full well is that if they don’t apply for the money Tuesday than the project is more than likely dead no matter how Windsorites feel.
Lets have at it Adriano and any other critic, lets demand the project be put on the 2010 ballot as a referendum item. What’dya say?
the point is that by applying on Tuesday, no final decision is made, by NOT applying a decision is made.
The first option allows meaningful public input, the second option does not
I absolutely agree. A referendum in 2010 is the perfect solution!
We need to get the BIA to demand this. Perhaps someone could instruct the BIA to remain quiet on the canal issue and demand a referendum.
Oops - funding has to be returned if not 50% spent by March 2010.
It is not the BIA’s place to demand this, it is their place to lobby for their members. To promote and beautify.
Since the canal plan would benefit the BIA members, they damn well better lobby for it.
However, if the taxpayers demand a referendum then great. And even if they don’t, they will know how councillors stand on it by 2010’s election. I’m confident that every councillor who supports the canal will be re elected
Any takers on that bet??? Anyone wanting to put their money where their opinion is???? I’ll bet today $100 dollars on every councillors re election who supports the canal. Chris S, care to put your money where your mouth is?
Oh, btw, I only speculated when canal construction would occur, just based on my opinion of an Environmental assessment being needed. I have no information or access to any information that anyone else does not. Its a blog, its personal opinion, remember? If you’re in doubt, please refer to my blog post “Why so Serious?” I repeat, I am not “in the know” or have one bit of information beyond anyone else. Mr. Horwitz was on that committee and did not share with me any of that information. I am currently away and did not even go to the DWBIA presentation.[DELETED]
[DELETED]
ALthough I am a fan of referendums, can you imagine the standstill gov’t would be if every issue needed to be decided by referendum. Why even bother having a council or mayor?
Tuesday our elected officials will take a stand and in a year and a half we can vote for whether we agreed with that stand. Same thing happened with the arena.
Don’t confuse a few opinionated people on some blogs (including myself) for the will of the masses. We’re just a bunch of talking heads, hopefully some of us have more to offer than others
[DELETED]
Especially the ones who only offer an opinion in an infinite amount of ways that the ABC is good and anyone who opposes them is bad. (Eventually we need to call the Guiness book of world records on how many ways and/or how long you can express the same opinion over and over and over again.) Leave it to a Windsorite to set another world record
I don’t understand why you are so adamant about asking for the funding if you know full well the project wont be completed by 2011 and we would have to pay it all back?
Isn’t that essentially trickery to make the citizens of Windsor believe most of the project iis being paid by the federal government when it isnt and will have to be fully paid by the City of Windsor?
Why else would you ask for funding that you know you won’t really be using anyways?
Really Mark?
Have you now resorted to ad hominum attacks to back up your stance over which you condemn others for allegedly undertaking?
Phew. First I’m a hypocrite and now a liar. Good stuff.
But enough with the diversion.
My position has been clearly laid out from the beginning.
Yours is quite clear as well.
Delay the canal project for a referendum which in effect kills the canal project because as the facts state, the city would have to give back the funding.
Therefore, as you have stated, no funding, the project is killed.
Or even better, unless council does B you won’t support A:
“I may very well work to stop its execution if the valid concerns that I have presented have not been addressed”
So you’re just a.o.k. not having the litany of issues, I, among others, have raised, disguarding them with ad hominum attacks, but if YOURS are not addressed, you “may work to stop its execution.”
So lets do away with council procedure. Heck, we barely follow it anyway.
Citizens do not deserve proper notice to express, as I have written, both points of view on a municipal expenditure that is unknown save for the $16-million contribution in addition to the all the added costs including possible environmental assessments, land acquisition, engineering, planning, rezoning, reopening the City Centre West CIP.
And all must be done within 60 days of receiving the funding.
Right - process isn’t important. Who cares? Let’s just skip all that.
Should council receive $38-million in total from the province and the federal government, they’ll gladly hand it back and do nothing.
If not the canal Mark, what else?
Right - back to offering those incentives for the City Centre West lands that haven’t been issued for 3 years.
I forgot to add, “I would go as far as saying that its dishonest of our politicians to begin these studies if they do it knowing they may not have have budget to implement them. “
I can’t remember who wrote that to me - I remember - it was Mr. Boscariol.
Chris, I stayed off your blog like you asked, I offered my opinions on my own blog. But that doesn’t seem to be enough for you. You are welcome to discuss on scaledown, but you want to post on my particular posts and cut copy and paste my posts on your blog.
If you want to make statements such that I am “clearly in the know” than simply ask me if I have information that you don’t.
Why don’t you simply remove my name and dishonest accusation from your blog and I’ll remove my assertion from this blog. Heck, I’ll go first as a show of good faith
Oh, and P.s. when I talked about being a hypocrite, I said it was because you can be tough on some bloggers but leave others alone when they are dishonest. You have no problem coming after me full throttle but handle the other guy with kid gloves. I’m sorry there is no nice word to describe that other than hypocritical. You, to this day have never answered that. I also put that in the context that everyone can be a hypocrite at sometimes in their lives and to certain degrees
“I would go as far as saying that its dishonest of our politicians to begin these studies if they do it knowing they may not have have budget to implement them. “
… and te quote out of context award goes to (drumroll please). in the context that I said it, the politicians actually implied the particular studies would be implemented (CIP’s, Belmio, downtown plan) and then started more. In the case of the Canal, the politicians have clearly stated that their final decision would be based on the information gleaned in the studies.
You’ve raised your issues, you’ve articulated them quite well as always. Thats what the public process and democracy is made of. You have the right to speak, you don’t have the right to force others to agree or listen to you.
Dude, you need a thicker skin if you’re going to dish out attacks
adriano, cost of asking for money: free.
Cost of not asking: 33 million if we go ahead
The whole point of this post is if you don’t ask you
Kill the project without debate or knowing cost
It should live or die based on cost benefits.
Asking for funding helps determine the true cost
Why would you be adamant that a funding grant
Somehow takes away our right to vote ?
“You either attack me or my points. If you attack me, its only because you can’t attack my arguments.”
I take it for granted, based on the limited information I’ve been given access to sor far, that the canal project is not shovel ready, not sustainable, may not be aesthetically pleasing, may cause more damage than it rectifies, will cost a small fortune, could produce ongoing maintenance liabilities and may prevent us from pursuing more worthy initiatives.
Yikes!
But what I’m most concerned about are the flaws in our democracy that it reveals. And I happen to go in for democracy, despite its many flaws.
As a member of this community, the process I would have liked to have seen for Windsor’s overall infrastructure request is this:
1. Some form of open-ended, comprehensive, community consultation. Civic adminstrators, not elected officials, would approach the public and seek their input on policy directions. Remember, the voters were not aware of the stimulus budget during the last election and deserve to be petitioned. The city has known about the stimulus budget for some time and has had more than adequate opportunity to do this.
2. Mayor/council select which of those projects have merit, are shovel ready and combine them with the projects that are more technical in nature, but still necessary, and then make a genuine pitch to the public about the list of priorities going forward. Even the stimulus budget is finite, and the emphasis we put on particular projects will presumably effect the outcome (notwithstanding expected backroom deals). When I asked the mayor whether he intended to prioritize the canal over the armouries project, he responded that he was going after as much money as he could. That’s not an answer and if it’s true it very strategic. When I pressed further, he said that the business case for the armouries was not ready. That is a spurious argument, since it does not appear that there is a business case for the canal. Or at least nobody has produced one.
3. A vigourous debate in city council sitting prior to submitting the list that is well-publicized, well in advance.
Obviously, this has not been the way that it’s about to play out. And the way that it will go down is eerily consistent with the way that our previous white elephants were conceived.
I’m not saying that due democratic process guarantees good policy or that bad process precludes a good result, but the larger consequences of bad process, which all to often has been the modus operandi in Windsor, are quite sinister.
It breeds cynicism, excludes people from the process, creates winners and losers, sets-up a volatile investment climate and eventually convinces people not to vote, or worse yet, vote with their feet and move.
Chris I did attack your argument
You states my Dwbia affiliation made me “in the know”
Clearly implying I had access to info beyond someone else
That statement is a lie
To state a conspiracy theory as fact is a lie
As for tristans points I’ll respnd she I get to a laptop
BTW, buddy boy, you are still persisting in stating your conspiracy theory of what I know as “clearly” fact. So now you’ve compounded the problem by knowingly making false statements.
I’ve never heard the arguement that the canal would not be aesthetically pleasing or cause more damage than they rectify.
As for costs, they are part of a cost benefit equation that is not fully known. Sure 15 million of taxpayer dollars sounds like a lot but what if the investment yields huge amounts in increased property taxes from new downtown development in the canal area and adjacent to it? You don’t know, I don’t know that yet
I’d like to hear some opportunities for these specific lands. So far there is no project that is being denied funding because of a canal. I agree that all projects must come forward and we must choose the one that yields the best return not only for taxpayers but for downtown revitalization
1. Why would it matter which individual approached the community for consultation as long as the consultation occurs ?
I don’t see any facts that say that this will not occur before we go ahead with the canal
2. I hope to end the “tyranny” of the word “or” when it comes to the canal and armories project. They both support each other as canal residents will likely support and attend the symphony and the symphony is another amenity that will lure residents downtown.
3. I believe your confusing submitting a list to going forward with a project. Can you guarantee to me that if:
we do not submit the list, a referendum occurs and windsorites overwhelmingly support the project, the same federal funding will still be there?
I don’t think you can. It is strange that only opponents of the canal are concerned with the process at this point. Its the point of my argument that I suspect the motives to be to kill the project by process.
To date there has already been more thoughtful arguments including your own on this project than any of the previous ones you have mentioned.
Thank you for responding to my comments Mark. I agree that the debate we have had concerning the canal on this forum has been thoughtful, respspectful, open and spirited, and that in itself is an enormously important innovation that Scaledown has produced.
The kind of change I’d like to see on a wider scale is for the people in our city to be having the same rich debates at their supper tables, workplaces, public meetings, with their elected representatives and administrators.
The problem I’m trying to document, however, is that our civic government does not create a meaningful space in which this could occur, and rarely seems to provide enough time or sufficient information.
The result of many years of this is a culture in which any innovation is presumed to be bad and most projects proceed without community support. The results? Occasional victories offset by colossal failures.
Some of us have responded to this as labelling anyone who has policy objections as whiners, but critical investigation of any public project is not just a democratic requirement, but usually makes the end result better and sometimes steers us away from the colossal failures.
The argument that the canal may not be pretty is my own. I had the overwhelming sense at the mayor’s presentation that his vision of the canal is to look something like the the area around the casino. In other words, generic, out of place in a historic city, tacky, etc. More Ontario Place than the Distillery District. More Devonshire Mall than Old Walkerville. I know a lot of people like that kind of design, I just don’t happen to be one of them. And when I host visitors here from other places, and in particular those places in Ontario we don’t do well at attracting, they tend to agree.
I agreed with the mayor at the meeting that we do need to connect the riverfront with downtown. In effect, we should be working to connect the whole city to the riverfront. That can be done myriad ways. My ideas are not better than anybody else’s, but most are cheaper than the canal and we’ve hardly begun to exhaust the list.
In order to regain peoples trust in light of Canderel et al., I think that the city government has to undertake a sort of Hippocratic oath, whereby it would adopt the notion that doing no harm to our existing stuff be paramount in any initiative.
Why start the consultation conversation with the bureaucrats? They have a lot of expertise. They’ve been around longer than most elected officials and they tend to take a longer term view. While some may have political agends (everyone has political preferences) I just think that they’re the most objective starting point to ask the open-ended questions and provide useful information to those who pose questions, with a bit less spin.
I have never argued that it should be the canal or the armouries. It’s just that the mayor’s tact–we should do everything under the sun and get as much federal cash as we can–is a dishonest characterization of the political process, infantalizes people and is not strategic. Grant programs always ask applicants to prioritize their requests. If this one doesn’t then it will get sorted out behind closed doors. It doesn’t seem ridiculuous to me to ask him which of the two projects he would prioritize and expect to get an answer.
I have never recommended we hold a referendum on this issue, so I’m not sure how your question is relevant. I recognize that referenda have a spotty history in producing good pubilc policy. I’ve been trying to make the case for meaningful consultations between elections.
see new post on aesthetics. very good point you have
Plain and simple this project is not free. Taxpayers of Windsor will be on the hook for at least 1/3 the cost.
Tristan nailed it. I’m certain that the building will be covered in stucco and crappy. Why? Because I don’t trust that any design guidelines will be in place.
Personally, I’m still leaning towards opposing it. Why? All because of Eddie Francis, he handled it like shit, and I DO NOT TRUST HIM, so this may be the best plan ever, but I’m not willing yet to get behind it.
There’s still far too much information that’s been slow to filter out. I went to the presentation the other day at the Art Gallery, and during the question period, one of the first questions? “What about parking?” “There better be spots right in front of the businesses on the road side”.
This question was asked as we looked at an aerial photo of the site, with a massive garage right beside the bus station visible in the photo…
Sigh. I fear if this is done, it will be done all wrong.
Andrew, I support your right to oppose this project, I agree with some of the reasons that it will be done wrong.
What I don’t get is that you would oppose it because you do not trust the mayor even though it could be the “best plan ever”.
I believe that if this plan is undertaken it will be the next mayor who we elect who will see its execution. (provided Mayor francis sticks to his two term promise). It will be voters who tell the councillors what we demand of the project
Actually the Mayor’s two term promise will be a good litmus test as to whether he can be trusted. If he sticks to that promise, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt on this project, would you?
Mark, if you think it will be the next mayor who gets elected will be the one who will see its execution, are you then saying you are for the city taxpayers funding the entire project?
the funding being offering by the government infrastructure fund is only good if the entire project is completed within 2 years.
are you ok with the citizens of windsor picking up the entire bill? thats what it sounds like.
Adriano, I’m not.
Mark, if you believe the mayor, then I have a nice house to sell you on Indian Road…
That’s right. I don’t trust that if King Eddie rams this through, Windsorites won’t get f*cked. Since he’s been mayor, there has been so much secrecy about everything. We’re still waiting for the audit on the 400 building for christsakes! That alone, combined with the knee jerk arena on the eastside, and everyone forgets Eddie’s first term promise to work on getting Zalev Brothers Scrapyard out of the middle of the city…. Don’t forget the no-bid $200k contract to Lufthansa to study Windsor Airport as a cargo hub…
It’s all secrecy and broken promises with Eddie. He has lost my trust, and I do not believe that he’s told everything there is to tell about the Canal plan. Trust me there will be an expensive and costly surprise to come.
The biggest part I have a problem with is that he wants to build a “new downtown” blocks away from the real one. If I wanted a fake ass downtown I would have moved to Manning and the EC Row. Why not take the minimum $16 million city investment and fix the real downtown? As long as Ouellette remains a cesspool, this ditch won’t be the salvation.
adriano, the whole reason I want it to survive Tuesday is so windsorites don’t have to fully fund it. And no I have no idea how the funding works.
I’m assuming if their applyying and watson an fed beauracrats says it’s eligible
It is as they are more informed than you and I
Andrew, I’ve already stated that i believe the canal will only work and my support for it would be conditional of them creating a downtown atrategy. I agree with you fundamentally here. The canal can’t be a substitute for a downtown strategy
As I’ve stated many times in previous comments, here is how the funding works for this infrastructure program:
If funding is received, the project must be completed within 2 years. If the project is not complete, the municipality has to pay back the full amount of the funding to the federal government.
As stated in section 9 of the funds guidelines, All projects are required to begin and materially end construction prior to March 31, 2011. Should this condition of funding not be met, Canada shall have the right to cancel funding in whole or in part, and further, Canada shall have the right to be repaid any funding advanced, in whole or in part, for any project that is not completed by the end of the program.
Can’t be any clearer than what it says. If the project isnt completed by March 31, 2011, you have to pay back what you were given. So it is actually less than 2 years.
So are you saying that when Jeff Watson and the so called ‘Federal bureaucrats” who said this program was eligible are wrong, that you are more “in the know” about whats eligible or not than they are?.
Heck maybe, I’m wrong about the project needing two years to start. What do I know about federal funding or canal projects other than what I read? I just know I don’t want it killed before it gets a chance to be debated
Not trying to frustrate you but if they’re voting to submit it for funding Tuesday night, then I believe its eligible. Otherwise there would be absolutely no fuss.
Adriano, if you were confident a yes vote only keeps the funding alive would you then support a yes vote Tuesday???? As long as we have every right to kill this project at a later date. the only thing that would stop us from killing it would be ourselves, a requirement for this project by its own standards is massive public support..
if jeff watson is saying its eligible than it probably is but what i am saying is that its not about whether the project being eligible or not. its about the fact that if we take the money and the project is not completed by March 31, 2011, we have to pay all the money we took back.
I really think that you NEED to re-read that section 9. Specifically this :
Should this condition of funding not be met, Canada shall have the right to cancel funding in whole or in part, and further, Canada shall have the right to be repaid any funding advanced, in whole or in part, for any project that is not completed by the end of the program.
Just to clarify:
This allows the government the right to cancel money as they see fit, be it in whole or in part based on the projects completion. It also allows them to take back any money PRE-PAID, in whole or in PART as they see fit based on the completion of the project. That section in no way says anything about what they will do…it only speaks of what they can do….or reserve the right to do.
Perpetuating half truths and biased interpretations only makes the situation worse. If you’re passionate, for or against this project its best to ask yourself why…and if you can truly justify your answer to yourself then great. Tell your councilor and be done with it! Otherwise don’t perpetuate misinformation or biased opinions…it hard enough to sift through the bullshit!
Dwayne, do you think councillors should take the risk of having to pay the entire project on our own should the federal government choose to withdraw the funding? I didn’t know Windsor was in such good shape that it need not have to worry about the possibility of paying for a another $60 million + project in full.
Dwayne, I know Adriano, and can vouch for him simply misinterpreting the condition.
I also agree that that no federal gov’t would ever pull funding it already gave for a popular and positive project.
Every objection I read still makes me believe they are all variations of
“The canal being a substitute for a downtown strategy instead of a project that can leverage or be leveraged by a downtown strategy”
Thanks, Mark.
One thing though…you sure that the pulling of funding would never happen?
I recall when Jean Chretien put aside funding for a high-speed rail line for the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, Paul Martin Jr. pulled the funding for it the moment he came into power. I understand construction for the project had not started yet, but, from previous assumptions you made, the canal construction may not start by the deadline either.
There is no canal vote today, whoever stated that there was is wrong.
Just a clarification for some folks. The canal being done is only the canal portion. The INFRASTRUCTURE of it. The building come from the private sector based on guidelines from the city. The ENTIRE thiing will not be built in 2 years. In fact it is to be phased in over a number of years.
I will not disagree with people’s fears. They are legitimate. But do we as a society continue to either fear the unknown and do nothing? I would rather have a bit of something than nothing at all.
I would rather the above than to be considered a cold and timid soul who knows neither victory or defeat.