Lessons from an Aquatic center debate
Not going to argue about the center, just want to note some observations from watching the debate via Dalson Chen’s Twitter Site. THANKS DALSON!!!
1. It sucks that benefits to some must come at a cost to others
2. The debate seemed to be between Union activists and Olympic athletes.
3. Windsor Square trumped the naysayer debate with blog post headlined “Are windsorites Stupid?”. Hey, I get that you have an opposing opinion but technically your contempt for the majority was over the top.
Even Schnurr who I’m still a fan of resorts to name calling “ Hilary Surf City Payne, “Economist” Al Maghnieh and the Manager of Chicken Operations, Drew “Diligence” Dilkens. “
Its one thing to stress how vehemently you oppose a position but to make Arditti look like the most impartial of the 3 is not your finest moment(s)
4. I didn’t actually hear the mayor’s final 15 minute speech but just the fact it existed sounded like rubbing salt in a wound, kicking those who were down. Had I been him, I would have offered to the defeated neighborhoods my committment to spend the rest of my term honoring my semantical bafflegab term of “repurpose” becoming a reality and trying to compensate them for their sacrifice on behalf of the rest of WIndsor
5. Councillor Al Maghnieh needs to stop basking in how smart he thinks he is and eat a large slice of humble pie. The losses of those who fought this are real and even if it somehow serves a greater good, you need to empathize more with those losses as they are very Real to those who experience them
6. Union rep’s need to deal with the fact that they have a serious image problem. Ever since I saw them fight the first proposal of a Riverfront Marina in the 80’s, I find it hard to take them as seriously as they want. Why not watch tonights debate again and try to see what I saw. You could have been against this proposal and not been labeled as a negative naysayer. I think they did that to themselves. I did not see that when I watched Paul Chislet or Andrew McAvoy. I only saw it with those with a union affiliation. You guys just come off bad and you need to soul search to find out why.
7. The naive optimist in me thinks that the fact that we couldn’t find a “3rd way” or an alternative solution that could accomodate more stakeholders is the price of rushing this through. Had we had more time, I’d ask questions like why aren’t we discussing the science center instead of the library. Wasn’t that one of the Mayor’s promises. If we had another 6 months maybe we could have made the word “Repurpose” become more than a contemptuous play on words.
8. No one adequately made the case (I was absent so I may have missed it) which I think was the most important that A cluster of amenities next to the art gallery could result in population intensification of the core. For me this is the main reason we should be doing this and it wasn’t even discussed. No consultant or experts opining on if and how much they think this could affect core population or affect the demographic of that population
In conclusion, the debate accomplished nothing as I don’t think anyone who spoke or participated in public consultations feel that they’ve been listened to because everyone who spoke, spoke at them and not to them. Everyone who they spoke to didn’t have an answer to their valid points, so their points were simply dismissed.
The problem is not that this is going to take a long time to heal. Its that the healing won’t even begin until everyone acknowledges each others points which has not even come close to happening.
BASICS: You can’t solve a problem that you don’t even acknowledge exists
Post Feedback
You need to go out of town more often!
Some good questions to think on in your post.
LMFAO moment, while watching TV just after the Stanley Cup game, saw a Moroun ad on WWJ that quotes Windsor Square as a source!
I just found out that Ed Arditti actually was named as the purchasor for the Parking Garage by the Tunnel eventually purchased by FERCAN
The fact that ED Arditti’s name was on the cash offer for the parking garage. That he acted on behalf of Matty Maroun or the Bridge company to purchase that parking garage.
IS THAT NOT ENOUGH OF A PREMISE TO SAY THAT HE IS AN EMPLOYEE/AGENT OF THE BRIDGE???? ISN”T THAT THE MISSING LINK TO SHOW WHAT HE REALLY IS?
Just Asking, I’d love some clarification on this by the Bridge or Mr. Arditti. I’ll even leave the comments open to get it
Post Deleted - Apologize for not catching this earlier, said I’d stop any more posts on this topic but I missed this one.
deleted - as per deletion of post above which should have been deleted far earlier - my bad
Good analysis, Chris. I wasn’t there either, but I knew Scaledown would have a measured analysis of how it went.
I didn’t get to see any of what went down last night - by choice. I think everyone knew that Francis was getting what he wanted. There are a few things that need to be said, especially from someone living in the neighbourhood that will lose two community centres, and has already lost schools and day care centres (early year centres that my kids went to almost daily).
While this conclusion may be good for downtown (well, despite how when the city gets involved in the private sector, they always screw it up - so, we’ll end up paying in the end either with higher taxes, or the lose of more neighbourhood amenities), but my neighbourhood in the west end will feel the brunt of this “progressive” project the most. We, my wife and I, had decided that if this goes through and we lose the two pools our girls swim in every week, along with everything else that we have lost in our neighbourhood, we would move to one of the surrounding suburban towns. Why you ask. Well, until recently, we were able to walk to the Early Years Centre (gone now), College Community Centre (slated to close), and Adie Knox Pool (again, slated to close), and Atkinson park has been on the radar for quite some time. So, everything we needed was within walking distance (one of the pillars of Scaledown: “walkable community”). So, to build this grand-neoliberal-mega-money-spender project, we in the west end lose nearly every city run facility we have (not to mention the schools etc).
One other point about the endorsement of this project; I kind of assumed that Scaledown was about building neighbourhoods and community in a sustainable way, not promoting proven failures specifically for a downtown at the cost of surrounding neighbourhoods. I’m not trying to say this in a negative or attacking way as I appreciate your concern, passion, and contribution to rebuilding our city, but I’m a little confused how a project like this that goes against nearly everything Scaledown has promoted for years would be endorsed by this site. If you could clarify this, that would be much appreciated.
In the end it is fairly obvious that the push to rebuild downtown - which I support - will come at the cost of, well, mainly the west end and economically challenged areas. As a swimmer, I would love the chance to swim in a 50m pool, but would be just as happy to be able to continue to walk to Adie Knox, as I have for over three decades, for a swim in a perfectly good pool (which I swim in weekly). Now with this project moving forward, I will have to drive to the nearest pool, which I could do if I lived in the suburbs. I’m sure this project will help downtown businesses and might even bring a few tourists downtown - which again help downtown businesses and might create some jobs (more low wage service sector precarious work. No, not good paying jobs this city desperately needs). However, it destroys a once vibrant community that needed MORE things, not things taken away to help rebuild the west end (I know, no one really gives a crap about the west end, not even its councillor).
Lastly, I’m sure the union folks probably didn’t do well with their presentations, but I would like to point out that Paul Chislett is the Social Justice representative for the Windsor District Labour Council - so he does have union affiliation.
One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that projects with wide public buy-in almost always do better over time than those that are foisted on people. I agree with you Mark that we could have arrived at a much better consensus on this one. Meaningful consultation is not easy and it’s time consuming, but worth every ounce of effort. Unfortunately, last night’s outcome produced a lot of losers and a host of unanswered questions.
Ron D.
Scaledown did not endorse this project. In fact I started the post with the line
“Not going to argue about the center”
Nor Scaledown or I have taken a position but that does not mean we have to ignore that there could be an argument on both sides of the issue. You can be against the center and still acknowledge that there is an argument to be acknowledged on the other side and vice versa.
Thank you for the correction on Paul Chislett, I thought he was very well spoken
The lady doth protest too much.
Coming from a guy who has publicly stated on facebook he doesn’t mind Chris Vander Doelen who takes name calling to a brand new low; utilizing terms to describe a councillor that they themselves have used - Maghnieh calls himself an economist, Dilkens called himself Manager of Chicken Operations and in my opinion, lacked “diligence” in a decision he made, and Payne who championed the Surf City proposal back in the day.
Names that pale in comparison, I will add, to those I have seen used on this site and on Facebook by you sir, which of course you’ll defend as being somehow different.
And as far as I am concerned, most of your posts fail to take a position save and except your own endeavours. It’s always safe to fence-sit isn’t it? And of course, displaying your tired and worn Ambassador Bridge “argument” in a post completely unrelated yet again pretty much sums up from where you come.
But it does please me to no end seeing your continued obsession with our site and all of its writers. As the saying goes, no publicity is bad as long as they spell the name correctly.
Cue the weeping and knashing of teeth while protesting you are misunderstood.
Chris: You can put the “tired and worn Ambassador Bridge argument” to rest once and for all by answering a simple question: Is Ed Arditti connected to the bridge? Arditti portrays himself as a “lonely” and independent blogger on your website. If he is in fact a shill for the bridge without disclosing that fact, then he and you are being dishonest with your readers. They are entitled to know if a person writing about a subject has any business connections with that subject. It’s pretty basic.
Really Victoria Rose - I suppose then a writer on this website has no credibility, nor does the Windsor Star or a handful of politicians. Good to know, thank you for the clarification.
Chris: So your own breach of journalistic ethics is OK because other people are doing it?
Hey, i acknowledge a liss of credibility when i had what i call a meltdown on scaledown over a year ago. I now work to gain it back. Who knows if i can or how long? I just will plug away trying to learn and grow.
I think most people comment on mr schnurr not because they want to tear his contribution down but they want to see it reach its potential. Obviously this will never be inferred from My observations as i am the wrong guy but maybe mr schnurr will listen tonthe comments of others. Oh, and distance urself from arditti before his stench stays with u permanently. Sigh…I just cant help myself sometimes.
All Good Chris, We both have our opinions, and thats all mine are. I certainly do have my issues. I like to think i’m growing as a writer and blogger and advocate of issues in our city. I’m sure I’ll always have my stumbles as I’m very ok with the fact that I am only human and fallible.
You’re right about the Arditti being a red herring here but the fact that the man even exists bothers me and I continue to maintain that you only harm your reputation by associating yourself with him. That opinion is actually out of respect for your skills regardless of your views of myself.
Although choosing not to delve into this particular issue, I don’t consider myself a fence sitter and I’d be surprised if many out there would characterize myself as such.
Talked about doing a joint post of pro’s and cons of this development with Chris H as this is a very difficult issue. Already my post was mistakenly taken as scaledown endorsing the aquatic center by Ron D as an example of how sensitive this issue is.
Sounds like I’m not the only one sensitive to certain comments and
P.S. Mr.S, some articles written by Van Der Doelen I like, some I do not, most written by yourself I also like, although that last one I did not, more because of the context of how it was placed in the square. ya gotta admit, it wouldn’t be easy for anyone to follow the headline “Is Windsor Stupid?”. Maybe you should offer your critique skills to your square associate, although I will happy to continue to try to take them as constructive criticism
Jim, unless mr arditti demands a retraction from
Me, its safe to assume ive once and for all exposed his business connection with the bridge. Arditti Being the signatory to an offer to
Purchase property (3million dollar
Cash offer, no conditions money upfront) on behalf of the bridge is a pretty definitive link
Mark Boscariol must be a paid agent of Eddie Francis as he has never denied being such so following Mark’s own logic he must be in Eddie’s pocket.
Actually, I can say without any issue that I’ve never been paid my our mayor for anything, especially to take any action on his behalf.
That is an example of the type of refutation I would like to hear from the square but their silence is deafening, 2 square people have now responded and refused to answer my scoop of their sites relationship with the Bridge. Time to close comments
I am sad for my city when countless public forums and emails to councilors said that most citizens would live to see progress downtown but not at the expense of amenities that already exist (and are being utilized) in other neighbourhoods. Overlooked is the fact that existing pools also create spending within those neighbourhoods. For example, after swim lessons we go have breakfast nearby and so do many people in our class. I am sure that this happens at other centres as the comraderie is great, especially with groups like the senior aqua fit classes. Now those groups will travel (if they decide to use the new pool at all) and if they decide to go out after swimming, their money stays downtown. Nice for downtown, not so great for businesses that were benefiting from being next to a community pool.
And I think the only thing that holds Windsor Square back from having amazing stories is that they wrap it all up with name calling. Complete loss of credibility.
I don’t mind the Aquatic Centre proposal but I wish there would’ve been more time to discuss what residents would like to see in a new facility. As stated, why hasn’t the city looked into making this a family and child friendly location by adding a museum and moving the Science Centre down there. Maybe in the future it could happen as an addition. By bundling all of these types of attractions I believe it would make it more of a destination for families on weekends and school children during the week. Just my two cents.
I am not sure what you are referring to when you say “countless” forums and emails. Councillors get literally thousands of emails in a week. Even a few hundred emails about an issue is not going to sway them when they get several hundred from the other side or supporting what may be a compromise position.
I followed this issue on a few social media sites and I would not say there was “countless” opposition. Those who opposed it felt strongly, but there weren’t really that many of them.
Hey, Chris S. If you’re there. I don’t want to post on the square site. I don’t even know if you’re reading this but I really didn’t mean to give your posted sarcastic descriptions of councillors the discredit that came out. I was really trying to emphasize the shortcoming of your square associate (in this case Paulson) calling most of the entire city Stupid.
I see on your latest post you mention this more than I think it deserves. All I was trying to say was that a blog post was diminished by the tone of those comments. As for my fence sitting on the issue, I would be worried by the fact that I own property and businesses downtown would make my comments worthless due to an obvious bias I had.
Note to the department of “falling on deaf ears”
You gotta stop bearing the entire weight of the shortcomings of your square associates. Make them accountable for what they write.
You ‘Out’ed” me as being a contributor to Councillor Maghnieh, however there’s more below*. But I did some outing myself that you’ve been silent on
Arditti has been “out’ed” as having a financial relationship with the ambassador bridge. Why don’t you call him on that? His name was exclusively on a cash offer to buy the parking garage behind the tunnel for something close to 3 million bucks. There was something strange where the deposit was the full amount of the sale in order to beat out a higher offer that paid upon close.
Seeing as I don’t think he has the financial status to make such an offer, we know he was an agent of the Bridge company. If I was wrong, I’d expect to see some legal letter threatening me by now.
Do you condone this sort of thing? You can call me whatever name in the book or accuse me of whatever heinous crime you want, but you’d have to file that under “two wrongs don’t make a right”
* Councillor Al Maghnieh was my employee for about a year (mighta been more) where he worked as my assistant years ago. Met him through a campaign we were both volunteering on and I like assistants with political backgrounds as I see them as being hard workers able to “cram” when necessary
“Seeing as I don’t think he has the financial status to make such an offer, we know he was an agent of the Bridge company.”
I guess we all know the answer to the headline on my article; at least as it applies to Boscariol. Your statement is assinine.
NOTE FROM MARKComments back open due to request but debate done on square and myself. I allow Mr. Paulson the last word above and will delete anything further.
I apologize to Dave but will remind him that I did shut it down for the very reasoning he expressed
——————
AND ONTO DAVE
That being said as a delegate I did mention how doing other things in the surrounding area may bring people to live and invest in the core but to build this centre only would do nothing to bring more people to live downtown (cripes I’m sounding like a broken record).
I think it adds weight to the arguement about this centre and city hall should be aware that citizens still want input.
I even stated how all the surface lots are an actual detriment to living downtown and how and why they should be changed.
As Mark suggestioned; instead of the library (for my own personal gain I hope it moves to the new centre) how about that Science Centre? Or better yet how about that museum that we so desperately need? Could either one end up on the Caron Ave parking lot if it can’t fit in the footprint?
Windsor wants the area to be a cultural hub. If so then build it right. Build it to blend into the existing neighbourhood (ie 19th century charm or accoutrements). re-use the TD bank facade for the second entrance that is supposed to be on Bruce and Chatham. Turn Parking lot 22 into a regal park; a real gem to add to the city’s parks.
It also ties into bringing the waterfront park into downtown neighbourhoods.
Do we really need a parking lot across the street from a centre that is suppopsed to promote physical activity? We have a parking structure one block away!
Anyway, this is a done deal so we should keep city hall’s feet to the fire to make sure the design is the right one for downtown. –
Dave its not just the surface parking lots which we’ve talked about. I still like Kunstler’s use of the term Parking Lagoons to describe them. Its the massive blank walls on city streets. Thats what everyone always ignores when discussing the WFCU downtown. They think we’d get Comerica when we would have gotten Joe Louis
Comerica works because it backs onto highways and has made one side interactive with the street. We need to make sure that the new facility does not leave us with massive blank walls like Joe Louis Arena that destroy the walkability of the neighboring streets
Oh, it was suggested I add a term limit to the comments of a coupla days. And keep in mind also, my original post was about the debate rather than the center itself, its the only reason why I made the mentions I did. I think when you have a bunch of olympians trotted out against a bunch of Union bosses, its relevant.
I think it framed the setting for the answer, I think it made it easy for councillors to ignore opponents and justify siding with the proponents.
Thats what this post was about.
Often people write about how polticians need to have the right enemies as well as the right friends. The neighborhoods harmed in this decision had the wrong friends and the councillors had many of the right enemies.
Thankfully we’re back to Mark’s insightful post…
Ron - You’re bang on. As our numerous discussions have proven, we’re on the same page. I must say, I have been rather ambivalent regarding the actual structure of the aquatic centre. I’ve never been in favour of closing down any established community assets to pay for it, however. In the shadow of the WFCU fiasco (which we hear about annually about how much money it doesn’t make, and the community assets that we’re pawned for it) it amazes me that more citizens can whole-heartedly support this arrangement.
I weep over your decision to look to live elsewhere, though I can understand it somewhat. I hope you stick around and change this city for the better with those of us digging in for the long haul
I’d have a tough time commenting on the actual arena, I volunteered on the City Center West Community Improvement Committee and own 2 bldgs and 2 different businesses on Ouellette and am landlord to 2 other businesses. I do believe my businesses will benefit from the traffic in the aquarium, that my bldgs will appreciate in value and eventually I will be able to increase my rents.
Now how much of that is from the aquarium, the library or the University is hard to differentiate.
However, knowing all this, I consciously did not come out as an unabashed supporter with no reservations because I can only imagine having the amenities of a pool or a library taken away from my immediate neighborhood. I do have a problem with the speed in which this is being conducted and I share many of Dave’s concerns.
I don’t want another Joe Louis here, I’ve consistently said that. Since 1994 I’ve been a consistent supporter of creating a neighborhood downtown. How this center is built will determine who or even if anyone will live next to it. And no one ever made us consider for the past decade that this would come at an expense to other neighborhoods.
That expense I believe may increase due to the speed in which this debate is conducted. I only hope the mayor and councillor Maghnieh put the efffort into the term repurpose becoming real as their speaches said it would be. Between the university, a rumored college campus, aquatic center and library, its gonna be easy to forget it. This is more than any other council and mayor has managed at one time
Deleted for mentioning me and the other