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.”