Beggars checklist
Well, It looks like this is where we’re going with our now more than ever adversarial position with Garbage collectors, parking enforcement officers etc… Etc..
http://www.taxpayer.com/sites/default/files/BeggarsCheckList.pdf
With the decrease in revenue predicted by Scaledown, we’re going to have to look at these issues. I’m sure South Windsor will be up in arms against selling off assets like Roseland.
What do you think?
————————————-
P.S. Doesn’t this seem like an important book?
Riverscapes: Designing Urban Embankments
By Montag Stiftung Urbane Raume and Regionale 2010 [Eds.]
Birkhauser, 575 pages
This is, in all likelihood, the ultimate guide to riverfront planning and development. With profiles of roughly 100 projects throughout Europe, Riverscapesoffers both an inspirational look at the possibilities of riverfronts, and also a detailed sourcebook that should be on the shelf of any planner or designer in a city with a river. Hulking at more than 550 pages, this is the kind of book that is best digested little by little; one chapter a day at lunch would turn even a casual reader into an expert. With essays, specific design notes and detailed case studies, Riverscapes will be the go-to resource for any place looking to recreate and reuse its waterfront amenities. Despite its European focus, the lessons and practices explored in this compendium will become increasingly relevant to other world cities as they begin to look at their oft-forgotten riverfronts as opportunities rather than simple utilities.
Post Feedback
re: #1 Salaries & Benefits in line with private sector
Lawyer & Consultant fees MUST be first to be examined and CUT.
Next, Golden Parachutes. Get them OUT of the employment contracts.
Next, Sunshine benefits!
They can raise tax rates all they want, our declining property assessments will win that race hands down. I heard that every commercial bldg in Detroit will still fall 25% from todays already depleted value. I’m sure Windsor is heading for that same fate with the surplus bldgs. That will decimate our tax base.
More and more I beleive that the CUPE strike was more about riling up public sentiment to allow contracting out or just the threat of contracting out to achieve more efficiencies from the Public Service.
Thats not the evil its cracked up to be. Unfortunately, the create a crisis strategy maybe the onlything public service workers and the public at large respond to.
Why it took a strike to lay the groundwork of public sentiment to deal with an average 36 day unplanned absence is abhorrant. No personal responsibiliy from managers and workers alike.
You’re half right Mark.
“More and more I beleive that the CUPE strike was more about riling up public sentiment to allow contracting out or just the threat of contracting out to achieve more efficiencies from the Public Service.”
Not so much “efficiencies” but to achieve re-election. The lead-up to the 2010 election started last April by taking on a soft target. Show you’re tough with CUPE and the votes will land in your lap. At least that was the plan before the mayor ended up selling the farm to the union and costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
I have a tough time believing the $300,000 of savings offered up by Garbage collection is a coincidence.
I’m pulling out the blame thrower and spraying everywhere, everyones at fault here.
Based on the Beggar’s Checklist, I expect to see Scaledown cease supporting things like incentives for downtown development, cultural affairs, anti-homelessness programs, bike paths and the Canal. These are not “Core Services” according to CTF.
But if you take CTF’s direction, the municipality is not about community it is about hard infrastructure. I wouldn’t mind some discussion on whether road rehabilitation includes making them look beautiful or merely functional. Does City Planning mean supporting any commercial venture or only those that support “complete neighbourhoods”? Is that core or non-core?
The CTF is a bigger supporter of community than you think they are. One of the items on their checklist is utilizing volunteers and external organizations. They support people who want to get involved with their community but can’t because a union opposes their involvement.
The CTF supports development charges that reflect the full cost of providing hard and soft services to new development instead of burdening existing taxpayers with some of those costs. That would create an incentive to build in existing areas and/or intensify new development.
City planning should NOT be about supporting commercial ventures. It should be about ENCOURAGING commercial ventures.
I think city planning should be about communities. A complete city made up of smaller complete communities.
Encouraging commercial ventures is the responsibility of economic development commissions. A well planned, well executed city will draw interest from outside investors but, planning to accommodate outside investors won’t necessarily make your city better or more livable.
I agree but if you read the Beggar’s Checklist, none of the things you suggest are recommended by CTF as “core” functions of municipal government.
That’s why a balance is necessary between the “fundamental” right and “fundamental” left. If we left things to the bean counters, we would have a sterile, uninhabitable place that would invoke absolutely zero civic pride of place.
That doesn’t mean that we should discount their list, though. Whatever we propose must be sustainable, and the pocket-protectors have a role in our ScaleDown universe, though they cannot be allowed to lead the program.
Why can’t they be allowed to lead? Want to create a disincentive to your supposed sprawl? Raise development charges to 100%. I guarantee you the CTF would support that since they do not believe that existing taxpayers should burden some of the cost of growth.
If you want all that stuff that makes a community a community, you need money. If the bean counters can find additional savings, then that savings can be used to provide public art, interesting landscaping, better looking streets and buildings, and so on.
I’m curious as to what this Riverfront bible states about commercial/retail development, and whether or not it would advise for/against further development along our coveted waterfront parkland like the Bistro on the River…
I’d like to know why the Bistro on the River, a privately held company, is “advertised” on the city web site. Is there something I don’t know (which is quite possible), or is the business being provided an unfair advantage over other restaurants, etc, downtown?
The Peace Beacon is owned by the city and the restaurant is leased to the operator. Presumably the City advertises it because if it stays in business, the lessee remains able to pay the lease.
Bistro is still a city asset, as a taxpayer I don’t want to see it lose rent below the ridiculously low amount it can charge now. They wouldn’t let the tenant brand or signage the bldg, they wouldn’t allow a decor other than vanilla bland. The place is nice but has NO SENSE OF PLACE, character or warmth. Thats probably why the tenant is having a tough time.
Thats type of confusion is why the public sector should stay out of the private sector.
As a taxpayer I want don’t want to lose revenue
As a restaurant owner I don’t like the unfair competitive advantage
More specifically, I am curious as to the root of the opposition to commercial/retail development on the waterfront, and whether other successful cities blessed with prime waterfront lands also have this moratorium on development.
It seems to me that some location sensitive development (built into the bank of the roadway so that it doesn’t block any sightlines) would just add to the pedestrianization appeal of the waterfront while creating a “bridge” from the downtown to the waterfront.
Am I the only one who feels this way?
No.
Generally Chris H. I wholeheartedly support your mission. However, I’m curious:
“and the pocket-protectors have a role in our ScaleDown universe, though they cannot be allowed to lead the program.”
This suggests that only one point of view is correct. No one single group, or individual, should be “allowed to lead the program” - there is a happy median; but statements such as that do not permit that happy median to be found.
Or am I misunderstanding your statement, which is also entirely possible - but that is how I read it.
I think what Chris H. was getting at was that value can be measured in dollars and SENSE. We should get value for money in any municipal undertaking while at the same time considering a project’s impact on the community.
As an example. Maybe we got the most bang for our buck with the arena and rec. complex on the east side but, is its value to the community maximized with this location?
Planning for projects needs to be balanced between cost efficiency and maximizing community value. We can’t do things just because they would be nice to do and we can’t only do things to an absolute minimum cost.
It’s all about balance.
Except the CTF would have never supported using tax dollars to create a ‘home’ for a private company (the Windsor Spitfires). If the Spitfires wanted their own arena, the CTF would have argued that they should be building it and financing it not the taxpayer.
Just saying that one dominant ideology should not get their way. A consensus built with a good balance would be a good place to start.
Chris H,
http://mapmycity.citywindsor.ca/gis/Default.aspx
Superimpose the different utilities and the such on the map for the area you propose to be developed and see what kind of infastructure may or may not be in the way. Or other obstacles.
I wasn’t thinking micro at this point, LoS. I was just wondering if there was still the same “don’t touch my riverfront” thought that existed back when the CAW opposed the marina.
Chris H, I think the reason for the sensitivity of the riverfront is the old Holiday Inn that used to be on the riverfront. Also it took Windsor 100 years to finally remove the railroad fro that land.
If the city allows building (I am just guessing here) on the waterfront they may not know what they are getting or it could spiral out of control. If the city sells that land developers may be able to do what they like with it. if the city leases the newly constructed buildings then the city is once again a lease holder. We know how good they are at that. ; )
I too would like to see development into the embankments but the CAW still weilds immense power in this city.
The stated goal with respect to the riverfront has been parkland from east to west. At least it’s been that way as long as I’ve been alive. I’ve never been particularly opposed to this idea but clearly nothing should be taken off the table. The pros and cons of development should be looked at.
What I really struggle with however is this current version of council seems to want to attack the operating side of the budget with unprecedented zeal. Conversely on the capital side of the budget they continue to spend like sailors on shore leave. It was explained to me by one councilor during the strke that “we still need to build our city”. I was struck dumb by that statement. Logic dictates to me that while true to a certain extent the statement should have been “we need to build the city we can afford”.