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.