Another critical, rushed Windsor decision-making process

 

Limited ranking exercise dressed up as "consultation" On Monday, June 21, 2021, Windsor City Council will be debating a $42M plan to redevelop the Adie Knox Community Centre in West Windsor, where 56% of children live in poverty. The plan includes the closure of the 25m indoor swimming pool - a neighbourhood treasure. A shared services agreement with the University of Windsor promises the relocation of most swimming programs to the university's new Lancer Sport and Recreation Centre. There are many valid questions about how this will work in practice, as well as social and other barriers that may inhibit neighbourhood residents from using the university facility. The actual investment might be far less than $42M, according to political commentator Frazier Fathers. He warns that the plan's details show that 40% of the project cost is a buffer for construction cost, consultants and contingencies. He also notes that funding for the redevelopment may come at the cost of maintaining existing city amenities. For years, area residents have actively campaigned to keep the Adie Knox pool open. As recently as December 2019, they successfully lobbied to keep it from the chopping block. Yet, two weeks ago (just 18 months later and during the same Council term), the closure of Adie Knox pool was suddenly announced. Where have we seen this before? To satisfy the plan's public consultation requirements, the City of Windsor conducted a single week-long survey from June 8-15, 2021. Respondents were invited to rank their priorities from a predetermined list of possible amenities for the redeveloped centre. The pool, the amenity that is so important to area residents, was not included as an option. A one-week survey (extended to 2 weeks!) for a $2 billion hospital project? The Adie Knox consultation process is eerily similar to the May 2015 ranking exercise for the site selection criteria for the new $2 billion County Road 42 hospital. It was the only online community engagement opportunity that hospital planners have ever offered residents! In May 2015, respondents were asked to select their 10 top priorities for the hospital from this list of 32 predetermined criteria:

Official Plan designation Site amenities (trails, nature, restaurants, shopping) Topography Zoning Visibility Servicing (established or potential) Impact of restrictions Proximity to EMS/Police Geotechnical features Parcel shape and geometry Roadway capacity Drainage Parking potential Arterial/Collector Road Access Rivers/Streams (Archeological) Flexible Site development User Access (roadway, drop-off, loading) Vegetation Parcel size Transit Route (established or potential) Protected wetlands Service catchment area Pedestrian/bicycle access Wind Provisions for allied services (e.g. Long-Term Care, Pharmacy, Office) 2 Road frontage Noise Relationship with other institutions (Research or Education) Distance to US Air Quality Neighbourhood compatibility Helicopter flight potential

Click on the survey box above to see the 32 predetermined site selection criteria and accompanying descriptions

Criteria failed to capture what really matters to the average person on a day-to-day basis Outraged residents were vocal in their criticism of this very poorly constructed exercise. The one thing that mattered the most to the majority of people was whether the hospital was to be built in an established urban neighbourhood, or in an undeveloped area. Yet, completely missing from the list of possible priorities was any language relating to the consequences triggered by the chosen location. For example, the impact to Windsor's established neighbourhoods of removing two urban acute care hospitals, which collectively support more than 5,000 healthcare jobs, wasn't addressed. Environmental concerns relating to increased commuter trips, construction on active farmland, potential flood risks to downstream neighbourhoods, and the enormous costs to taxpayers of creating new municipal infrastructure to develop and service an exurban hospital site were all excluded too. Respondents were required to provide their names and email addresses. This inhibited hospital insiders (contractually obligated to refrain from negative comments) from airing any concerns they might have. Especially bafflingly, respondents were not required to provide any demographic information. Standard requirements for professional surveys such as age, gender, income and postal codes were not collected.

What followed was a public admission of consultation failure! Site Selection Committee Chair Bob Renaud, who was also Chair of the Windsor Regional Hospital Board, acknowledged to The Windsor Star on January 7, 2016: "the committee did not consider what effect removing two hospitals might have on the city core, however, since that was not one of the criteria his group was asked to assess." Years earlier, an exurban hospital location was already in the agenda, long before any public consultation, however limited, was conducted -- only 600 people responded to the 2015 ranking survey -- just 0.15% of the regional population! In 2009, when hospital planners submitted planning documents to the Ministry of Health, they had already identified a "greenfield" site as their preferred choice. Since then, they have never shown any signs of deviating from this intention, even in light of sustained public pushback and new data and policies proving it is an outdated development model. In the 364 written comments to the 2015 ranking survey, the local community clearly communicated their concerns about the negative impacts of locating the new hospital far from the region's most densely populated neighbourhoods: 154 asked for an urban hospital site, compared with 103 who favoured a rural site. There were also 18 complaints about the survey itself. With 50% more respondents specifically asking for a site where people already live, the failure to incorporate this in the final site selection criteria was a critical failure in the consulting process. It showed an unacceptable unwillingness to address public concerns. Similar to the way local officials have executed their years-long unrelenting campaign to remove the Adie Knox swimming pool, hospital decision makers treated public consultation as a box to be checked off while continuing to plan according to a predetermined agenda. Read the 364 comments here

Emergency Fundraiser Update - Week 4

Dear CAMPP friends and supporters, Thanks to your generosity, we brought Windsor Regional Hospital (WRH) a cheque for $20,683 raised in under three weeks! Several more donations came in since then, but CAMPP still needs to raise $34,000 more to pay our court-ordered $55,750 legal bill. We know you don't like this situation, but this is the price of keeping healthcare equitable, inclusive and accessible. Each contribution is a message to decision makers at all levels of government that hospitals belong where people live.  Everyone in Windsor Essex deserves a better healthcare plan. In their own words Several supporters wrote comments relating to resilience: "The big issue is no one in this region should be okay with going from two hospitals to one. We gain no beds from this plan even though our population is growing and we are already below provincial average of beds per capita. Why are we not pushing for more as a region?" "A new hospital is more than just medical science. It encompasses all aspects of “Urban Planning and Related Social Conscience and Service”. The new Mega-hospital thought and current forecast development process is flawed. Putting all eggs in one CCU hospital basket in a CoVid type future challenge, in my opinion does not measure up to a soundly based Windsor-Essex Region public health Mega-hospital forecast." "Many years ago at one of the few town hall meetings I asked what would happen if the hospital was shut down due to a flu epidemic. The answer was "no problem" the doctors and nurses could enter from another entrance. I asked what if they had spent lunch together in the cafeteria with the public. I was blown off by my question. Bottom. Line, one hospital only certainly jeopardizes the region. We need a plan B. It's only logical to have a contingency to fall back on." "A few years ago my mother had a surgery postponed twice due to a problem with the sterilizing equipment at Hotel Dieu, thankfully it wasn't an emergency and she was able to wait it out, but what about emergencies if there is only one hospital. A city the size of Windsor deserves to have two stand alone hospitals, even if it is a little more expensive, especially if they expect it to grow to , up until now, unheard of annual numbers, as some of their reports suggest ( and some don't of course) The redundancy in emergencies is essential." "Building this hospital across from the Airport puts it smack dab in the middle of a flood plain that will cause extreme flooding to the Little River corridor. Riverside and areas going East will be the recipient of basement flooding."