Community Support for CAMPP's Legal Appeal Grows

On April 23, 2019, the Via Italia Business Improvement Association announced a $2,500 donation towards our legal challenge to halt the planned development of a new 1,000 acre subdivision to be anchored by a new mega-hospital. They are the third Windsor BIA to throw their support behind CAMPP's LPAT appeal. This prompted the Windsor Star's Anne Jarvis to write her April 24, 2019 column about the growing number of concerned residents and the impressive list of high profile donors backing our campaign to rethink the hospital location.   Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH) CEO, David Musyj's quoted response was customarily blunt:   "Who are they to speak to the location of the hospital?”   Who are we? After more than five years of continuous public advocacy to rethink the mega-plan, how can Mr. Musyj legitimately ask this question? Over 2,000 local households displayed lawn signs demanding hospital services remain accessible to the city's more than 200,000 residents Hundreds of residents have spoken at, or written to Windsor City Council 1,300 signed an online petition asking to keep hospital services in Windsor's city centre 2,500 signed a petition to the Ontario Legislature requesting a restart of the site selection process Countless letters and emails were sent to local MPPs, appealing to them to intervene To date, nearly 300 individuals or community groups have contributed more than $50,000 to our GoFundMe campaign to pay our legal costs for our current LPAT challenge. Who could possibly ignore this much public engagement?   Yet, WRH planners still refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of the community’s displeasure: its well-articulated pleas for accessible and inclusive healthcare, fiscally responsible planning and environmental stewardship. Importantly, Mr. Musyj's statement in the Windsor Star omitted the fact CAMPP has persisted in advocating for a responsible location for the new hospital, not whether to invest in one. His comments to the Windsor Star also advanced a well-worn rhetoric about private inpatient rooms and bathrooms. What does this have to do with the disputed mega-hospital location or improvement in patient outcomes? Especially, as the site selection overlooked critical factors, such as population density, current economic data and realistic demographic trends.   When will WRH planners - unelected bureaucrats funded by the public they are appointed to serve - finally be held accountable for public statements that ignore the real issues? When will WRH be held accountable for years of discounting the extent of public dissatisfaction? Building for the past The plan that the hospital’s unelected empire builders have been presenting as a done deal - an undeveloped exurb, single site acute care hospital with acres of additional surface parking - was formed with last century's healthcare centralization mind-set. Healthcare will most likely look very different a decade from now. We can expect it to be considerably leaner: enabled by medical advances, but also forced by almost $350 billion of debt inherited from the previous government. Many procedures will be less invasive, and average inpatient stays will become fewer and shorter. There is a role for a new hospital system, but the monolithic $2 billion mega-structure as presented to the public (with enough land to replicate itself) will almost certainly be obsolete long before opening day. It is far more likely that any further delays in what has already been a lengthy planning process will be due to the Ministry of Health asking hospital planners to right-size their proposal for a more realistic future. There’s no debate:  Windsor-Essex needs provincial investment in our hospital infrastructure. Parts of WRH's two campuses have seen better days. But others are also relatively new, like the $17M Regional Cancer Centre built in 2001, and the state of the art surgical suites completed in a major renovation in 2005. How well have the two campuses been maintained since scuttling part of the first phase of a 20 year, $670M Ouellette Campus expansion in 2013? Have further necessary renovations to WRH been intentionally delayed in order to increase the public's support for the mega-plan?  A new hospital should be about better patient outcomes A great hospital plan is about far more than private rooms and parking. How will the delivery and outcomes of healthcare be improved if it is inaccessible to tens of thousands of vulnerable residents, especially those without cars? A consistent lack of accountability Are our healthcare leaders spending too much time - and scarce healthcare resources - on the promotion of their field of dreams, rather than ensuring the community's current and future needs are properly met? Who are we? CAMPP is thousands of Windsor-Essex residents who care deeply and publicly about the future health of our community.

In the community: What people have been saying this week

“If you accept the narrative that debate might give the Ford government “an excuse” to cancel, wouldn’t it be irresponsible to signal to the government that local fingerpointing would deflect blame away from them, should they decide to cancel the project?”

“If Windsor could start planning like it’s 2019, not 1969, this appeal would not be occurring.”

“And let’s be clear - Windsor City Council (pre-election) supported the ‘project’ but has NEVER had a fullsome conversation about location, in fact tried to shut that down at every turn.” "There are a number of us out there watching, who wish we could be public with our thoughts. I think about the momentum that's building and the validation of the cause."

“He has cost the people thousands of dollars. First by running a site selection process that was sub par, then the money he wasted on consultants and lawyers and forced us to focus our energies and money to stopping this ridiculous project.”

“The Windsor mayor made it very clear that council were NOT voting on location, only approval of levy / support of new hospital. Again NOT location. Perhaps he is mistaken. It's rather unfortunate to see the approach and stance taken towards citizens and following due process.”

CAMPP Appeal Granted Oral Hearing!

On April 16, 2019, CAMPP's legal appeal won the right to a future oral hearing "based on the breadth and nature of the likely issues." This outcome resulted from the arguments our legal counsel put forward at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) Case Management Conference held on March 20, 2019 in Windsor. CAMPP's appeal challenges the proposed location of the mega-hospital and the development of a new (residential and commercial) subdivision on 1,000 acres of active farmland.

“The Tribunal has agreed many significant issues have been raised by CAMPP” said Eric Gillespie, our legal counsel. In its decision, the LPAT Tribunal reconfirmed participant status for 28 of the 29 residents and organizations who had applied to join our appeal. RE: Consultation with First Nations The LPAT Tribunal disallowed the late submission by Walpole Island First Nation to be a participant. CAMPP and another participant, in their respective arguments, pointed out the absence of meaningful consultation with First Nations residents during the hospital site selection process. The Tribunal indicated that should it have any unresolved questions with respect to this issue, it has the authority to call a representative from Walpole Island First Nation for further examination. Our next steps The LPAT Tribunal has directed the parties, including CAMPP, the City of Windsor and Windsor Regional Hospital, to continue working towards agreement on a condensed formal list of issues by the end of the month. They also directed the parties to prepare an agreed statement of facts within 45 days. An oral hearing date has not yet been set.

If you wish a deeper dive Click here to see our legal arguments and a summary of relevant policy provisions.

Some recent comments from donors who have supported our Windsor Hospital Appeal GoFundMe campaign:

“The proposed location goes against all sustainable planning principles. No one purposely builds barriers into their cities and the airport is the biggest barrier.”

“The most vulnerable individuals of our community should have the greatest ease of access to healthcare services.” "My family and friends, my neighbours and community, my city and county, the farms and the flooding, deserve a better hospital plan."

“The hospital planning committee did a very poor job in regards to involving the community in the planning stages and rather than own this  error has chosen to mask it with the default argument that in such matters it is impossible to please everybody and so we did what we thought was best. That sort of mentality should be publicly flogged.”

Have a comment you'd like to share? Please send it to us by replying to this email. We love to amplify our supporters' viewpoints.

LPAT is an independent tribunal that ensures good governance and transparency

For five years, hospital planners have only welcomed positive opinions, while disparaging all public expressions of concern. Don’t believe those who say it's time to move on, or that our appeal will jeopardize our chances of getting a new hospital. Their fearmongering is designed to suppress negative public opinion and to obscure the flaws in the mega-plan. Please encourage friends and neighbours to learn about the importance of the LPAT process, while this independent tribunal reviews the facts of our case.   Your participation in CAMPP's efforts is democracy in action!

Recommended Reading: Why losing essential services to the suburbs is bad for everyone

For more reading on why it's an expensive mistake to move essential services away from established neighbourhoods, inspiring author and educator Jamie Littlefield describes a very similar situation in her home town of Provo, Utah, on the Strong Towns blog. We highly recommend the article, and we're looking forward to reading her upcoming book about "the wild & wonderful ways people are recreating their cities."

Read the article here You can also follow Jamie on Twitter at @writingjamie

Correction: City of Windsor Challenged LPAT Participants

In our March 28th eblast, we wrote: The Toronto lawyers for the City of Windsor and for Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH), who appeared to be working closely together, asked that the submission by Walpole Island First Nation be disallowed. Wood Bull LLP is the Toronto law firm for Windsor Regional Hospital. A representative from the firm wrote a letter to our lawyer, Eric Gillespie, stating that they made no submissions to challenge any of the requests for participant status. We wish to set the record straight. In fact, it was Peter Gross, the lawyer acting on behalf of the City of Windsor, who made the arguments to disallow Walpole Island First Nation and several other parties from participating in our appeal. The other parties they challenged were the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA), The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), Michigan Chapter, and the Consulting Engineer for the two shortlisted hospital sites, Richard Spencer. The background on Walpole Island First Nation's request You might recall that Walpole Island First Nation's request for participant status was received shortly after the 30 day cut-off for the March 20, 2019 Case Management Conference.

During the conference, our lawyer, Eric Gillespie, pointed out that we are living in an era of reconciliation. He suggested a practical way for this important submission to be included with all the others. The Tribunal is still considering Mr. Gillespie's suggestion.

They will let us know when they have made their decision.

“The hospital is not only critical to the area because of the services it provides, but it is also an integral institution which impacts our businesses and neighbourhoods. The moving of the hospital will only add to the problems we are already facing such as vacant store fronts, crime, and blight. We are working hard to revitalize our area, and this would be a major setback.” -- Wade Griffith, Chair of the Wyandotte Town Centre BIA

What happens when the personal finances are not available? “West Windsor hosts more public housing and a lower income demographic compared to the rest of the region. The new location leaves them further cut off from care facilities and from family care when in need. Location matters for retirement homes because of the multiple weekly ambulance trips to the hospital. The added cost to city taxpayers for longer ambulance rides has not entered the equation... it is the responsibility of the patient to arrange and pay for a ride home after a hospital stay. A city bus is most often not appropriate. What happens when the personal or family finances are not available?” -- Mike Cardinal, Founder and Administrator of Cardinal Place

Making the right planning decision “An institution such as a hospital should be in the population centre - and not the geographic centre - of the community it serves. Disclosure: I live in the county and locating the hospital in the city will make my drive further...but it is the right planning decision.” -- An anonymous donor