Why is our top local elected official spending so much time courting favour in Essex County with people he wasn’t elected to serve?

Why is he not addressing the concerns of Windsor residents?

"Members of Council shall serve and be seen to serve their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner"    -- Municipal By-Law 98-2011

Windsor mayor Drew Dilkens posted this picture from a meeting with Essex County's mayors on his social media on June 25, 2019:

In the accompanying story by local radio station AM800, he was quoted saying:    "We will all go to Toronto together to make sure the premier understands that our entire region is behind this project."

How can an elected leader make a claim so far from the truth? The mayor's statement could hardly be further from our local reality. There is no debate about the need for provincial investment in our health care infrastructure. But this does not apply to support for the location of this investment. For more than five years, engaged residents of all ages and from all walks of life have been pleading with their elected decision makers to represent them in calling for a responsible location for our new hospital.

1) Thousands of Windsor and Essex County residents have displayed lawn signs protesting the planned mega-hospital location (on active farmland adjacent to Windsor Airport):

2) A recent CTV News poll showed a clear majority does not favour the exurban hospital site:

3) At the nine-hour long, August 13, 2018 Windsor City Council meeting at which the hospital zoning was approved, 37 of the 45 attending delegates voiced factual concerns about the proposal. Of the 8 remaining delegates supporting the proposal, 7 were developers, representatives of developers, or landowners. Only one delegate who favored the proposal was a resident without any apparent financial interests in the location. More than 20 written submissions expressing negative concerns about the site were also presented to Council during that meeting.  4) 33 delegates spoke of their concerns for the location of the hospital at the April 25, 2016 Windsor City Council meeting at which the tax levy for the 10% local share of the cost of the hospital was approved. 5) 28 participants have been approved to join CAMPP's LPAT challenge of Windsor City Council's approval of the project. 6) Four Business Improvement Associations (BIAs) pledged their financial support for the LPAT challenge on behalf of their member businesses with concerns about the impact of the loss of two institutions (employing more than 4,000). Since 2014, there are many more excellent examples of the community's widespread resistance to this flawed plan, yet the mayor - - Windsor's top elected official  - - pretends there is nothing to see.

How can we possibly trust our elected leaders to do the right thing? In the past two decades, Windsor's officials have made many flawed decisions despite well-founded constituent objections. Flimsy analysis is often used to justify having "skin in the game." Taxpayers are still paying dearly for these mistakes. Among the poor planning decisions: 1) Adventure Bay, a city owned waterpark, is a financial failure. A well-used community swimming pool (Windsor Water World) in one of Windsor's lowest income neighbourhoods was closed in 2015 to pay for this new facility. Two others (Adie Knox and Atkinson) narrowly averted the same fate after an outcry from area residents. Waterpark revenues were supposed to cover the running costs of the adjacent natatorium, which was built to host swim meets and a diving program. Instead, annual losses are running in the millions of dollars. 2) In 2016, Windsor City Council approved the expropriation of two homes -- and eviction of its residents -- on city-owned airport land for future private economic development. Three years on, the properties are still vacant. 3) The City awarded Premier Aviation and Fedex (in 2012 and 2013 respectively) sweetheart deals at Windsor Airport in exchange for commitments to bring employment to the area. Investigative journalist Alan Halberstadt reported in his September 2018 BizX column that "I have yet to count more than 50 cars in several drives around the parking lot this summer, and on some days I counted significantly fewer than that." After filing several Freedom of Information requests, he was still not able to establish whether these firms met their contractual obligations. 4) Five years after opening the new South West Detention Centre in 2014 on farmland located 13km from downtown Windsor, visitors and employees still have no way to access the jail via public transit. 5) WFCU Centre: This arena, built on Windsor's boundary with the Town of Tecumseh in 2009, replaced the city's downtown arena ("The Barn"). Area hotels and commercial development still have not materialized and there is no redevelopment plan for The Barn. Seven years after opening the facility, Council approved $400k in upgrades to reduce energy costs by $120k/year. 6) Demolition of the historic Norwich Block on Windsor's waterfront to build a glass and steel business tower (the "Canderel Building"): After two decades, the City finally extricated itself from its million+ dollar annual lease commitments in a deal that involved relinquishing ownership of a multi-story parking garage facing the majestic Detroit skyline -- premium residential space in any other city. The list goes on. Windsor residents have good reason to be wary of grandiose decisions made by City Council over their well-articulated, evidence-based objections.

Who does the mayor of Windsor work for? Where does the balance of power lie? Drew Dilkens is now in his fifth year as mayor after two terms as a councillor. For 13 years, he has been in an influential elected position. From his 2018 mayoral campaign finance statement: $72,700 (52%) of his $140,610 election cost was contributed by 94 Windsor residents $68,000 (48%) was paid by 77 donors with addresses outside Windsor $52,850 (38% of total contributions) came from 61 individuals in Essex County (outside Windsor).

Who are the real constituents? While we are not suggesting any financial wrong-doing, the source of Mayor Dilkens' campaign financing is thought-provoking. What could be the implications of so much campaign funding from Essex County residents without voting rights in Windsor?

In their own words: Weekly round-up of comments from our friends and neighbours

"Developers dream, patients nightmare. Also Windsor taxpayers nightmare. .....they gotta pay for the infrastructure to make it all happen. No thought behind project other than developer greed."   "I’ve never seen a major city grow around an airport.. nor mega hospitals across the street from airports." ~ "CAMPP has been presenting legitimate concerns but unfortunately were ignored. It’s too bad that people can’t work together to do what’s right. They would rather pit city residents against county residents as a distraction." ~ "The proposed site is closer to me & I have a car.  I can’t imagine if I was vulnerable & had to rely on public transportation. When I had chemo & radiation & had to go daily or multiple times per week, if I needed a buses, it would be ridiculous & vulnerable don’t have funds for taxis. I feel the vulnerable need better access due to lack of income." ~ "Met and hotel [Dieu] have more beds then they use the problem is they don’t have the funding to open them meaning funding to hire more ppl too. But unfortunately those in support of the hospital itself ignore that problem." ~ "Why don’t they post a poll what the professionals working at the current hospitals think?" ~ "I feel residents of Windsor AND county may be taken aback by potential parking charges.   A cursory look at other newer hospitals that are in more isolated locales comes in at roughly $12 a $15 a day.  Are people okay with that." ~   The Mega hospital idea should have been brought out to the public for some real consultation though 'those in the know' didn't think that average citizens opinions were worthy of consideration.   ~ "We need to make DRASTIC changes to fix things in Windsor.  DRASTIC CHANGES. It won't be the loss of retail or professional offices in the core that will kill our city, it won't be the loss of our hospitals that will kill our city, it won't be closure of nieghbourhood schools, swimming pools, or arenas that will kill our city.  It will be ALL OF THESE THINGS that will lead to the failure and decline of our city. These will all be nail's in the coffin for our home and what will be left is nothing more than a fragmented, disassembled version of what once was a city. We need to wake up and fight for this place if we truly love it.  We simply cannot stand idly by while ignorant politicians and bureaucrats stand with their hands up in the air and do nothing.  The future of Windsor can be vibrant and bright, but not if we fail to take MAJOR action NOW."

Strong Towns: Can urban sprawl kickstart Windsor's economy?

This week a leading North American urban planning blog profiled the Windsor mega-hospital debate. Strong Towns suggested a plausible, yet very financially risky reason to build our new hospital so far away from Windsor's most densely populated areas.

"Why would the city go along with such a plan? One possible motivation is to lay the ground for suburban development. Specifically, a proposed 400 hectare (roughly 1.5 square mile) residential and commercial subdivision, which would lie south of Windsor Airport, near the proposed hospital, is contingent on the rezoning of the land and would seemingly need the mega-hospital project in order to kick-start the development. It would include room for 3,280 homes—roughly half of the total number of new homes Windsor anticipates needing in the next two decades, just in this one currently-agricultural area." Read the full article: Activists fight to keep Windsor's new hospital in the heart of the city. About the blog: Strong Towns is dedicated to making communities across the United States and Canada financially strong and resilient. It began as a modest blog, gradually growing to an international movement with almost 3,000 members. One of its key goals: "Stop obsessing about future growth and start obsessing about our current finances." After you've read Daniel Herriges' article, please leave a comment and share it widely!

For more reading 1.  Proudly building for the past:   "By the time that hospital is built 15 years from now, when I’ll only be 101,” said [former Windsor City Councillor Hilary] Payne with a chuckle, “it will be surrounded by subdivisions.” Windsor Star columnist Gordon Henderson comparing the development - a century ago - of Ottawa's Civic Hospital to the situation in Windsor in 2019. Note 1: Henderson fails to mention that Ottawa's General Hospital, which still exists today, was built downtown (in the Byward Market area) in 1845. The Civic Hospital was an additional facility, not a consolidation of two hospitals, unlike the proposal for Windsor-Essex. Note 2: Henderson describes the acquisition of the land in question from the Town of Tecumseh, but fails to mention that future population projections in 2003 were significantly more optimistic than they are today. He does not recognize that responsible leaders adapt to new demographic, financial and environmental circumstances, rather than stubbornly putting the viability of the project at risk by relying on outdated data from nearly two decades earlier. ~ 2.  Using community design to create healthier lifestyles: “If we approach community design from a health outcomes and well-being perspective, we can potentially reverse epidemics like obesity and chronic diseases, and address issues like social isolation and poor mental health.” What might happen if we designed our communities differently to make it easier to form healthier habits? ~ 3.  Both simple and brilliant:  "People should be free to live in a prairie-style house on a quarter-acre lot in the middle of Minneapolis, so long as they can afford the land and taxes. But zoning subsidizes that extravagance by prohibiting better, more concentrated use of the land. It allows people to own homes they could not afford if the same land could be used for an apartment building. It is a huge entitlement program for the benefit of the most entitled residents." A strategy to address the housing shortage.

Wanted: A hospital location in an established neighbourhood

Is it selfish to ask for responsible decision making?   We're noticing some people who favor the Sandwich South development and the County Road 42 hospital location like to pigeonhole those who oppose it -- by using derogatory terms like selfish, self-centred, nonsensical, whining or fear mongering. Another recurring theme is making unsubstantiated, alarming claims, like if we don't back down Windsor will lose the provincial funding for the new hospital. Yet, our advocacy about this issue for the last five years has simply been a call for responsible and transparent planning. These same name callers never address any of the very serious concerns we talk and write about. Among them are elected officials (and others, including a former city councillor) who continue to insist we will only accept a downtown hospital location or that we oppose building a new hospital. Why have these folks chosen to fabricate or amplify factual inaccuracies, rather than engaging in a constructive dialogue with concerned residents?

Mr. Snively is the Mayor of the Town of Essex. He was responding to our June 9, 2019 eblast.

Mr. Cooke is the co-chair of the hospital steering committee. (He deleted his Twitter account in 2019 shortly before being appointed to an external Independent Review Panelto examine the workplace culture of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), prompted by recent suicide deaths of OPP members, as well as complaints about the workplace culture by OPP staff.)

We have every right to expect better from elected officials and hospital decision makers. Since 2014, we have actively participated in public meetings. We have also directly provided these officials with well researched and professionally written explanations; factual and cogent reasons for CAMPP's position. Residents who support an actual urban location (vs. one on active farmland) for the new hospital are a sizable constituency. We deserve to be accurately and constructively represented by our elected officials. CAMPP has consistently called for our new hospital to be responsibly located in an established, already developed and serviced neighbourhood, if the two current, centrally located Windsor Regional Hospital campuses are to be shuttered. Yet, we've never identified a precise, preferred site, since it needs to be determined through an open and transparent process with appropriate site selection criteria. What is the ideal location for a hospital? Ideally the new hospital will be built somewhere that's already developed and well populated. It should also be accessible by multiple types of transportation (car, public buses, bicycle or on foot) for the greatest number of people in Windsor-Essex.

Our goal is to ensure that: all voices are heard and counted in the planning of Windsor-Essex’s new hospital financially, socially and environmentally responsible urban planning principles are followed. What is selfish about asking that this $2 billion provincial investment comply with these common sense objectives?

The City is here for you to use   For more reading on the importance of free speech in Windsor's civic conversation, please go to: ‘We must speak with one voice’ is just another way to say ‘you must be silenced.’

Weekly round-up of comments from our friends and neighbours:

"We always need to listen to others. It makes every plan, idea and life better." ~ "They havent made provisions for all the BOOMERS coming of age, in need of long term care facilities.  The whole thing is so stupid to be taking it away since the renovations are barely over a decade old." ~ "Funny how we are concern of democracy in other countries but are having difficulty recognizing challanges in our own village. What unnecessary demonstration of power for an issue that was resolvable by a rutine conversation among administrators.Amazingly lost understanding who is to SERVE here." ~ "I don`t think they have support for their plan from the province as it stands. but it is puzzling why they wouldn`t amend their plan instead of going through this whole process" ~ "No one is saying we don't need a new hospital. They're saying put it in a location that makes sense. That's all that's going on. It makes absolutely ZERO sense putting the hospital where they want it." ~ "Why should Windsor be stripped of medical facilities to support bedroom communities? And, no, the site is not part of Windsor proper. It is a freaking field with absolutely no infrastructure." ~ "I continue to be concerned about the long term costs to support a sprawling community like Windsor. Municipalities will already be impacted by Bill 108 which - i'm assuming - will lead to increased property taxes. What will the impact of additional urban sprawl be on taxes?" ~ "So grateful to everyone driving this effort forward. Thank you"

Windsor's Flawed Planning

An Impossible Dream? Below is an infographic explaining the flawed data Windsor's elected and unelected officials used to drive the zoning of Sandwich South, the 400 ha (1,000 acre) subdivision --- to be built on existing farmland --- anchored by the planned new hospital. Strangely, there is no data suggesting a foreseeable future need for this new development; neither population nor employment growth projections support it. For such a colossal investment with such long term economic and social consequences, the masterminds behind it should have solid data to support it. Residents and especially Windsor taxpayers, who will shoulder the costs in perpetuity, deserve nothing less.

For more information, go to our infographic data sources: 1. Page 19  2. Table 13.3  3. Page 26

A 100% Windsor taxpayer subsidy for industrial employers As we showed in a chart in our June 2, 2019 email, the industrial sector's share of developing Sandwich South is expected to cost $38M. This infrastructure development will be 100% subsidized by Windsor taxpayers, whether or not any future industrial employers materialize.

For example: The still unused top-scoring GEM site (passed over for the selected hospital site on County Road 42) is situated within an already fully developed and serviced industrial/commercial location, paid for by public taxes years ago. Many other sites in Windsor already designated for industrial/commercial use are also available. On the map below, the magenta area identifies the GEM site location. It is surrounded by established Windsor neighbourhoods and minutes from the neighbouring municipalities of Tecumseh and Lakeshore:

Why are we planning to subsidize the development of even more land for future industrial use?  What is the likelihood of any major new employers on Windsor's horizon? A round-up of recent comments from our friends and neighbours: "This $60K milestone equals the approximate percentage of people who disagree with the planned site of the hospital. Their reasons are diverse and legitimate. Let them be heard." ~ "I'm with the BIAs! County Road 42 is a bad location and that's what CAMPP is fighting - they are not "denying us our new hospital". The number one location choice on Tecumseh Rd. E., which would have required no infrastructure upgrades, was rejected by David Musyj in favour of this location nowhere near a highway interchange and on a two-lane road with no infrastructure, which Windsor taxpayers would have to spend millions of dollars upgrading." ~ "I vehemently oppose the use of perfectly good farmland for the site of a megahospital" ~ "If located out in the boonies as is proposed [it] will only serve to encourage (rather than discourage) urban sprawl in direct conflict with other major cities seeking to curb urban sprawl." ~ "Is a single “Super Hospital” serving a population base of less than a three County ½ million population sustainable? Specializations required will always opt for London as the Regional Centre for South-West Ontario. Such skills require a population base that will support the multiple challenges faced, entities required, equipment and facilities provided for achievement of purpose." ~ "The so-called “wins” espoused by this esteemed group of leaders would apply equally to a more rational plan for a full-fledged acute-care facility in the city core and another central to the county, which would have the same benefits of healthcare modernization and economics of spending billions of dollars." ~ "Keep up the great work!"

Planning for people who live here

What are the hidden costs of basic amenities in new subdivisions?   Why is there so little accountability about the high costs of establishing and maintaining Sandwich South, the 400 ha (1,000 acre) subdivision --- to be built on existing farmland --- that is to anchor the planned new hospital?  At the May 27, 2019 City Council meeting, a $216,800 pedestrian and bicycle path in a new South Windsor subdivision was unanimously approved. When built, it will considerably shorten Rockport Street residents’ walk to the nearest existing bus stop for the Walkerville 8 bus, the route which serves this neighbourhood. It's great that Council embraced a plan that puts people before cars. Yet there’s more to this story. We're writing about it today because it illustrates the lack of insight into the total costs of creating new subdivisions. This is in contrast to development of existing neighbourhoods with good population density where connectivity to public transit already exists. The developer’s lawyer (at 7:35) asked if the pathway's cost justifies its future benefit. His client favoured not building it at all. Fortunately Council decided otherwise. Councillor Chris Holt established (at 8:04) that ongoing maintenance of the 95 m (312 foot) pathway - mowing and snow removal - will come out of Windsor’s operational funding. This has not been budgeted.  How does this relate to the ongoing costs of the planned hospital location? The 400 ha (1,000 acre) Sandwich South development (roughly the size of downtown Windsor) is much larger than the Rockport Street subdivision. While the issues are similar, the scale of the capital investment and future maintenance costs will be much greater: Windsor taxpayers will pay at least $220M - more than a fourth! - of the $850M in capital costs for developing Sandwich South and East Pelton, the subdivision to be built beside it. Together, these subdivisions are expected to house 13,243 people, even though the City's Planning Department anticipates Windsor's total population to increase by just 7,752 through 2036 over current levels.

These capital costs do not even include the additional tens of millions of dollars needed for public transit and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Additional maintenance and running costs, in perpetuity, are to be paid by Windsor’s operational budget (funded by Windsor's property taxes). Why have future ongoing costs not yet been identified? The lack of clarity around monumental future costs at a time of modest overall population growth is a key reason for our August 2018 request to defer the approval of the Sandwich South development. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? Our future population growth is expected to be minimal. It’s safe to assume there will be little appetite for higher taxes. And as our population ages, there will be a need for more transportation options for those who cannot or do not drive. If Sandwich South goes ahead as proposed, uncomfortable public funding choices will have to be made to provide basic amenities to support a healthy and active Windsor. What Windsor amenities will be cut back in the absence of robust growth in our tax base? We’re hopeful that Council will revisit its approval of the Secondary South Planning Area. Imagine an $850M capital investment in existing neighbourhoods! Without thorough public disclosure of the expected future tax burden of new subdivision development, Windsor's costly expansion plans are neither transparent nor accountable. Some recent comments from our friends and neighbours: "BIAs should not be bullied by the mayor." ~ "It is a bad planning decision and devoid of any real imagination or courage. We should not allow people with so little creativity to lead this mega project." ~ "Everything about the MegaHospital county location is wrong. Others have built next generation hospitals on the same site as working hospitals, while the existing hospital continued to operate. (e.g. Sarnia, after strongly considering a greenfield build)" ~ "Good governance is the key to solving tough problems. This hospital siting process is a classic example of democracy being hijacked by a few hidden powerbrokers. The result is a process which is undemocratic, corrupt, irresponsible and unaccountable. The end result is a hospital site choice which does not serve the needs of the majority of the people, is the highest cost solution, has the greatest negative environmental impact and causes maximum economic harm to the core of the city." ~ "Have we not learned about city bad decisions re location of important  core facilities. WFCU is a prime example, located in the booneys at the time." ~ "Drew Dilkens has proven himself time and again to be beholden to his special friends, and to have no understanding whatsoever about urban planning. He voted to locate the Spitfires outside of downtown, he pushed for the white elephant water park. And now, he wants to gentrify our city centre for who knows what "real" reason. I live in the county, however a city site makes much more financial and common sense, to avoid further de-centralization and urban sprawl. Windsor needs a real business- person, with common sense, to get the city back on track." 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. In the news  Several Business Improvement Associations (BIAs) fear moving acute care hospital services (and thousands of employees) out of established neighborhoods will hurt their businesses. When they dared to donate money to our legal challenge, how did the City of Windsor respond? Read more in Anne Jarvis' column: How not to work with people Follow Council at its June 3, 2019 meeting. Note the letter written by Ward 5 resident Richard St. Denis on page 122 of the agenda package.