What's the future of Erie Shores Healthcare?

Is Erie Shores Healthcare on the chopping block? Will the mega-hospital plan lead to the loss of programs and services in Leamington?

HayGroup, consultants to the Erie-St Clair Local Health Integration Network (LHIN), produced a report in 2009 that they euphemistically described as a "proactive initiative to identify options for addressing sustainability challenges" at the three hospitals in Leamington, Petrolia and Wallaceburg respectively. Although the wording is a little cryptic, this excerpt from the report is worrisome:

Excerpt from HayGroup report to Erie St. Clair LHIN, 2009

Erie Shores Healthcare is a well-loved county hospital with a 24/7 emergency department (ED) and a wide array of surgical services. According to the report, it serves a total population of 70,000 people living in Leamington, Kingsville, Essex, Harrow, and part of Tilbury. The overall population has not significantly changed since the report was written. However, it is rapidly aging.

In their recommendations for the Leamington area, the report authors described several factors that might make the ED "less viable in the future". The authors acknowledge (pg.17) that closure would be an "undesirable option". Continued overcrowding in Windsor hospitals, lengthy travel distances, and a high degree of family disruption were identified as consequences of hospitalizing large numbers of Leamington-area patients in Windsor. For these reasons, the report authors recommended neither closing the ED nor replacing it with an Urgent Care Centre (UCC) for the foreseeable future, which they defined as the following five years. The "foreseeable future" ended in 2014 In 2015, Erie Shores announced the closure of its obstetrics unit as a cost-cutting measure. This decision was only reversed after large numbers of Essex County residents mobilized in protest.  Is it possible that a hospital location on Windsor's outskirts had already been established when the site selection process for the new single site facility formally and publicly began in 2015? Erie Shores Healthcare ended its March 31, 2019 fiscal year with a $1.3M deficit. Our regional population is aging, especially in the Kingsville area where a "retire here" promotional strategy has boosted the local senior population. Hospital caseloads can only be expected to rise. How will increased financial pressures affect the hospital's future operations?

Potential game changers: Highway 3; Development on Windsor's outskirts

47 km from Erie Shores Healthcare to WRH Metropolitan Campus 50 km from Erie Shores Healthcare to WRH Ouellette Campus

A decade has passed since the HayGroup's report was produced, yet there's no reason to think its recommendations have been forgotten. A new single site acute care hospital on Windsor's outskirts, a little closer to Leamington than Windsor Regional Hospital's current campuses, combined with long-awaited improvements to Highway 3, might pave the way for future program and service cuts at Erie Shores in the name of efficiency. Couldn't this be exactly what decision makers need in order to justify converting Leamington's ED to a UCC with limited hours? How might the loss of a 24/7 ED impact other services currently provided by the hospital? Would Erie Shores remain an acute care hospital? For years, Windsor-Essex residents and politicians have been lobbying to widen Highway 3. Construction of the new single site hospital on County Road 42 -- as opposed to a location that's closer to the region's most densely populated neighbourhoods -- will only further enable our increasingly cash-strapped provincial government to justify further "realignments." Who are the winners? If the mega-hospital plan comes to fruition, and further "efficiencies" are announced in Leamington, almost half of the Windsor-Essex population will lose equitable access to healthcare service under the $2 billion plan: more than 100,000 residents of Windsor's neighbourhoods north of E.C. Row, and 70,000 people primarily served by Erie Shores Healthcare. Will one single site acute care hospital be sufficient to serve 400,000 people? Hospital planners and certain elected officials continue to drive a wedge between city and county residents. This helps to obscure the political and financial motives in play. Perhaps -- if the project is allowed to proceed as announced -- the real winners will be the developers and road builders with secure long-term government contracts, rather than the patients whom our increasingly fragile public healthcare system is supposed to serve.

Surely there must be a better way We're calling for a new plan that equitably allocates the provincial $2 billion investment in improved healthcare services and accessibility for all. The current proposal will prove to be a costly mistake "for generations to come." There's still time to get it right.

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

"We all believe in the importance of a new hospital... we just deserve a proper location and a better plan for this region!"

"If the plan doesn’t comply with provincial policy we can’t be surprised that they aren’t releasing the funds and approving going forward."

"I like to refer to a new location as a responsible proper location. A better location implies this one is acceptable and it’s not. Just my two cents."

"There has been a whole new vision of urban growth since the plan for Sandwich south began. Three obvious environmental strikes against it are: increased driving time, decreased population density, and paving over farmland unnecessarily."

"If only one acute care hospital to stay open (which would be selling us all out) then the 42 site is horrific for much of Windsors population.It was the worst thought out location ever. "

"Even the most irresponsible of gov’ts wouldn’t give them planning money when the site has yet to even have approval and that is in the hands of LPAT."

"I was on the train yesterday and started talking to a man in his late 70’s about the mega hospital (lives in Lakeshore, originally from Brampton). He started talking about how disgusted he was that people had to go to London or TO for specialty services, surgeries etc and said this hospital needed to be built so people didn’t have to travel. I went on to explain how the new build won’t increase staff, doctors, nurses, specialty services, new equipment or stop us from having to travel (also explained they have already starting eliminating programs). I also explained the P3 partnership and all that it involved. He was shocked and had no idea. He was definitely not in favour of that."

"Does anyone remember Kathleen Wynne's visit to Windsor? The mayor had said something very similar about being engaged in a conversation about proceeding with the mega and so on. Two of the councillors had spoken up pointing out that there was nothing planned for any of the scheduled, official meetings between KW and city council about discussing anything to do with the hospital. The mayor's response to that was something to the effect of 'oh, it must've been while we were walking to her car' "    -- In reference to Mayor Dilkens' July 23, 2019 photo op with Premier Ford

Why has this billboard on the former Grace Hospital site not yet been removed?

Photo published in The Windsor Star on May 3, 2019 advertising the "future home of the proposed urgent care centre"

It's been three months since the City of Windsor definitively announced an urgent care centre (UCC) would not be built on the former Grace Hospital site. In May 2019, the City formally invited expressions of interest (EOI) for other uses for the six acre lot.

Astonishingly, Windsor Regional Hospital still claims it is the future site of an urgent care centre! What could be the reason for not advertising the EOI widely? There's absolutely no signage to indicate the former Grace Hospital site is available for redevelopment. Wouldn't that be helpful for drawing the attention of urban-minded developers? Might there be an insider waiting in the wings for a sweetheart deal after the August 16, 2019 deadline?

Photo taken Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 8:45 a.m.

Did you know, almost two years ago a UCC on this site was already in doubt? On December 1, 2017, the former Minister of Health, Dr. Eric Hoskins announced the Ministry would be looking at using the Emergency Department (ED) of Ouellette Campus for the site of a UCC, rather than the Grace property located 2.6 km to its northwest. (An ED is a 24/7 service that operates in a hospital -- For more on the substantial difference between an ED and a UCC, see this link)

Extract from HayGroup's January 26, 2009 report "Small Community Hospital Emergency Department Study":

Here is Dr. Hoskins in this 24 second clip from his 2017 announcement:

"We’ve got to do what’s right for the taxpayers and for the residents of this city", said Windsor mayor Drew Dilkens. Indeed. A $58M addition to Ouellette Campus was completed in 2005. (This was part of an extensive 20-year, $670M expansion project that was ultimately shelved in 2013 after the decision was made to replace both of Windsor's acute care hospital campuses with a single site facility. Both Ouellette and Metropolitan campuses are to be demolished according to the plan) From the description of the renovation project in the August 31, 2003 edition of Health Care Design Magazine, it's diificult to believe that continued use of the Emergency Department is no longer feasible:

"As a major step in the redevelopment process, a new 130,000-square-foot wing was constructed to the east of the existing hospital on three levels. This project includes the Emergency Department, Outpatient Clinics, Diagnostic Imaging, Surgical Suite, and ICU. As part of the new Diagnostic and Treatment addition, a new main entrance, drop-off, lobby, and vertical connections were created, along with a new ambulatory and ambulance emergency entrance, on Goyeau Street."

Why are hospital planners continuing to mislead local residents, especially those living in Wards 2 and 3, with the promise of an urgent care centre on the former Grace Hospital site? Importantly, are the local elected and unelected decision makers really doing "what's right for the taxpayers," especially in light of the Ouellette Campus additions 15 years ago?

Recommended summer reading from the July 9, 2019 edition of The Atlantic: "Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It"

University of Iowa College of Law professor Gregory S. Hill describes in the article how the American legal system helped squeeze out alternative modes of transit using examples that are valid in Canada too.

"Instead of merely accommodating some people’s desire to drive, our laws essentially force driving on all of us—by subsidizing it, by punishing people who don’t do it, by building a physical landscape that requires it ... ... zoning rules scatter Americans across distances and highway-like roads that are impractical or dangerous to traverse on foot. The resulting densities are also too low to sustain high-frequency public transit. Further entrenching automobile supremacy are laws that require landowners who build housing and office space to build housing for cars as well."

The article covers many of the same types of issues we're grappling with in Windsor. The proposed location of the new hospital and the Sandwich South development are never likely to facilitate the scale and frequency of bus service and bicycle infrastructure implied in the plan approved by Windsor City Council --- and envisioned by Ontario's Planning Policy Statement. Will taxpayers be prepared to pay the high (and as yet undisclosed) price to supply the level of service that will make it attractive for large numbers of people to take the bus? Of course, it would be absurd to suggest that everyone stop driving to hospital. We're simply calling attention to the need for time-efficient and cost-effective twenty-first century transportation options -- especially for the thousands of employees and volunteers who work at Windsor Regional Hospital:

Is it possible the planners only paid lip service to the needs of staff, patients and visitors who may - perhaps through no choice of their own - rely on active or public transportation? Read the Atlantic article here

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

"I received my first CAMPP email today!  It has the virtual air of a (provocative-good) new text book... or the first edition of an important magazine. Dare I compare it to opening a new toy, or sitting in a new car?"

"Essentially why spend hundreds of millions of dollars and destroy the core if it's not going to save anyone any time."

"I was sent to do a pizza delivery Called customer: I'm lost Customer : look for the don't close met and oullette campus sign. 🤣 Me: I should comp this pizza lol."

"They are spending public healthcare dollars on lawyers from Toronto. They should have addressed our concerns instead."

"We talk about food deserts. Well, Windsor is developing a health care desert."

"It's a dereliction of duty that they are letting public assets rot. Ouellette Campus is being demolished by neglect."

"I don't understand why a new hospital needs a 60-acre facility. Sure, an ER, an operating room, acute care wards, and diagnostics such as CT , MRI, and lab, are essential, but anything that can be handled with an appointment does not need to be in the same facility. Dialysis clinics, orthopaedic clinics, and a myriad of other functions can work very well as stand-alones."

"Time is the precursor to evolution to avoid redundant dispersion and existing urban decay as reflected in Detroit's urban core from 1955 to 2000. It's time to pause, reflect and re-think sustainability toward achieving a plausible solution."

"Every metropolis and surrounding area has a hospital and they are located within the most densely populated area. Windsor needs an anchor too."

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.

Windsor Mayor's integrity questioned in formal complaint

Integrity Commissioner complaint filed against Mayor Dilkens relating to incendiary public comments

On July 8, 2019, The Windsor Star reported that local resident Dee Sweet filed a complaint against Mayor Drew Dilkens. Ms. Sweet took issue with the mayor's May 2019 public criticism of the Business Improvement Associations' (BIA) financial support of CAMPP's LPAT appeal. The backstory:  According to The Windsor Star, the mayor claimed at a May 17, 2019 media event that "taking taxpayer-levied dollars from their members to fund a third-party appeal of a city decision is clearly outside of the scope of what a BIA can do."

He went on to say that City Council could decide to dissolve their boards for breaching the Municipal Act. He stated that he suspected Council would instead opt to reduce BIA budgets, and make changes to the budgets BIAs had submitted. But the situation was not as clear as the mayor claimed Two weeks later, after the BIAs presented their own lawyers' position, the issue was resolved: City Council unanimously approved their budgets and the pledges to support our legal challenge were allowed to stand. (Watch the Council debate from 7:23 to 7:55).   Read about the integrity complaint Ms. Sweet posted this message on social media on July 11, 2019:

The many conversations about responsible government that are taking place in the community are very good news indeed.

Recent media coverage of similar issues in other Ontario communities

Sudbury: A parallel case is heating up: The Sudbury Star reported May 29, 2019 that the Downtown Sudbury BIA is squaring off against city councillor Robert Kirwan.

Multiple LPAT appeals have been filed against Sudbury's controversial approval of an entertainment district and arena on Sudbury's outskirts. The underlying issues are very similar to the reasons CAMPP is appealing Windsor City Council's development approval for Sandwich South. The outspoken councillor has been openly critical of the BIA's involvement and would like to see it disbanded, and the project fast-tracked. According to The Sudbury Star, the BIA accused Councillor Kirwan of violating the municipal code of conduct and deliberately spreading misinformation, “defaming known individuals and maliciously sowing discord in the Greater Sudbury community.”    Read the story

Ottawa: The deeply unpopular planned addition to Chateau Laurier is a study of the struggle between city vs. suburban interests, and the powerlessness of councillors in the most-affected wards.

“I’m not sure we could get a worse design,” according to Ottawa Councillor Catherine McKenney. Macleans published a thought-provoking article titled "The Chateau Laurier fiasco exposes the idiocy of city amalgamations" on July 11, 2019. It explores the underlying reasons that led to Ottawa's Planning Committee granting approval to a B.C. developer, Larco Investments, for an addition that is overwhelmingly unpopular among both area residents and heritage experts. "In municipal power struggles, suburban voters have different priorities than people who live close to downtown. They tend to be more interested in highways than in transit, more pro-development and less inclined to take measures against the kind of sprawl that produces short-term profits but ends up imposing tax burdens on people who live in denser areas." As the author Stephen Maher points out, "There is something mysterious about the council’s refusal to bend in the face of the biggest public outcry over a municipal issue in living memory."

Save the date: Upcoming event on August 27, 2019 Amherstburg Community Foundation presents: Thought Leaders Speaker series - Gil Peñalosa “Creating a Vibrant and Healthy Community ... Or Becoming Irrelevant”

The Amherstburg Community Foundation, with the active support of community builder and philanthropist Richard Peddie, is hosting a series of public lectures. The guest speaker at the first of these will be Gil Peñalosa.

Mr. Peñalosa MBA, PhDhc, CSP is an influential urbanist, a Certified Professional Speaker, and the Founder and Chair of the Board of 8-80 Cities. This is a Canadian non-profit organization that promotes the idea that "if everything we do in our public spaces is great for an 8 year old and an 80 year old, then it will be great for all people." Mr. Peñalosa was also an early donor to CAMPP's legal challenge. He commented: "I feel ALL public investments in cities must be in the right places to build a healthy and vibrant community". From his website: Gil Penalosa is passionate about cities for all people. He advises decision makers and communities worldwide on how to create vibrant cities and healthy communities for all, regardless of age, gender, ability and social, economic, or ethnic background. His focus is on the design and use of parks and streets as great public places, as well as the promotion of sustainable mobility: walking, riding bicycles, using public transit, and new use of cars. Where: Libro Centre Arena, 3295 Meloche Rd, Amherstburg When: Tuesday, August 27, 2019, 6.30 p.m. Seating is limited, so the event organizers ask that you obtain your tickets ahead of time through Eventbrite. You won't want to miss this!

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

"Perhaps they forget that citizens make up this city, that they are responsible and accountable to the citizens and not the corporation of the city. Communication with citizens are critical, and not to be avoided, but instead with open ears and open minds."

"Hospitals are anchor institutions and should be built in city centres to help with economic growth and community building. Hospitals belong near academic institutions where medical schools are for easy access for med students and researchers. There are so many reasons why the hospital belongs in the core. Every other city in Canada has figured that out .... why would we do something different??"

"Explain to me why Windsor taxpayers should foot the bill to increase sprawl to accommodate Tecumseh, LaSalle and Amherstburg?"

"Does the airport need a hospital? If anything, the airport is in the way and people and ambulances will take longer to get there."

"Makes no sense. People who live in those areas do so because they do not want to be in the City of Windsor. This is not "Field of Dreams". Just because you build it, does not mean they will come. But allowing sprawl WILL hollow out the core neighbourhoods and create ghost towns. Downtown Windsor is a prime example. So many years of allowing big box sprawl has hollowed out the retail downtown."

"Windsor-Essex deserves better. We need to advocate for more not less than we have now. We need to advocate for a plan that is financially, socially, and environmentally sound."

"County Road 42 only got the nod because it was a fraction of a percent cheaper. A few million on a 2 billion dollar project."

"I've often wondered if this was mostly a con, never expecting the hospital to be built, just using it as an excuse to develop an area unnecessarily. We need business and community leaders to understand, this isn't just about a hospital."

"We have to make sure the Hospital never gets built way out in the county, worst place ever."

"I've never seen a municipality develop around an airport. It's just unheard of to develop across from an airport!"

"Name a city where a hospital is in the county. It doesn’t make any sense. The city of Windsor is already in trouble! Keep the jobs downtown."