Was public trust compromised?

Mega-hospital site selection: Was public trust compromised? Did the $6M new Windsor-Essex hospital site deal close by its July 2017 deadline? Is there still a valid contract?

The County Road 42 site for Windsor Essex’s proposed new hospital, along with the development of Sandwich South, was announced to the public as a done deal in July 2015. However, now, four years later, it’s clear the deal has yet to be done.

Has anything changed since 2015? The land registry record shows that, as of July 2019, four years after the initial announcement, the legal owner of the irregularly shaped 60 acre property, with an assessed value of $400k, is still Michael O’Keefe Farms Inc.

On July 17, 2015, CTV News reported that “The 60 acres required for the hospital will be purchased for roughly $100,000 an acre, pending approval from the province.” So, has the province approved the $6M O’Keefe farm purchase yet? There is no evidence that approval for the purchase of this 60 acre (24 ha.) parcel of unserviced farmland -- with an assessed value of just $6,817/acre today -- has been granted. Was the Agreement of Purchase and Sale quietly extended? According to the terms of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, the property should have been transferred to Windsor Regional Hospital by July 21, 2017. Buried in the small print, the contract provides for the possibility of a one-time extension of 180 days (January 17, 2018):

It’s now July 2019. Was a 180-day extension duly requested as required under the terms of the purchase agreement? If so, what happened after the January 17, 2018 deadline? Is there still a valid contract? Is this procurement process open, fair and transparent? Two years after the original completion date provided in the agreement, it’s completely unclear whether the purchase agreement is still valid. Was a clandestine postponement of the deal negotiated beyond the one-time 6-month extension provided in the contract? If so, is this in compliance with the language (and spirit) of the Broader Public Sector Procurement Directive? It applies to organizations receiving more than $10M in Ontario government funding, including hospitals. The Directive is based on five key principles that allow organizations to achieve value for money while following a procurement process that is fair and transparent to all stakeholders:

Back in 2015, during the first phase of the controversial site selection process, the GEM site -- the only other short-listed site -- scored higher than the County Road 42 site:

The data (made available only after CAMPP filed a Freedom of Information request) overwhelmingly indicated the GEM site was superior to the O'Keefe site on County Road 42. However, GEM lost the bid process because of a $1.8M difference in land price. Yet the calculation excluded tens of millions of dollars in multiple necessary infrastructure upgrades on County Road 42. As the Windsor Star’s Anne Jarvis wrote in her January 7, 2016 column: “So for a [land price] difference of 0.1 per cent, the second-best site catapulted into first place.” A very significant question remains to be answered Was a competitive procurement process ever conducted? Were the owners of the GEM consortium -- with full knowledge that the County Road 42 deal was priced at $100k/acre -- ever invited to submit a new competitive bid after the contract’s original July 21, 2017 expiry date? We all want this provincial healthcare investment in our community There’s no debate that we need new healthcare infrastructure. However the process must be managed transparently and with the best interests of all residents in mind. This issue goes far beyond whatever opinion you may have about the best location for the new hospital. It’s a more fundamental matter of accountability and public trust. What can you do? In the absence of an accountable and transparent process, we have every right to doubt whether the public interest is being properly served. Please reach out to your elected municipal and provincial leaders. Demand proper oversight over this $2 billion investment. These decisions will affect the stability and health of our community for generations to come. Windsor-Essex residents deserve better. We need to demand better. Wondering who to write to?  Follow these links to contact your elected representatives: Windsor-Essex MPPs Windsor councillors Minister of Health Christine Elliott Premier Doug Ford More contact information

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

"Totally agree with everything you have said. Before last August 13th’s meeting, we emailed our city councillor, E. Sleiman, to vote against the proposal of the zoning of land on the outskirts of Windsor for a hospital. We said he should be fighting to have a new hospital built closer to his constituents. He did not answer." ~ "Drew Dilkins wants to throw the BIAs under a bus for giving money to a cause to keep businesses in their neighborhoods, yet doesn't think twice about taking half his campaign money from the county - folks he is not elected to serve." ~ "Small group???. I think not." ~ "Thank you  for this work.... Taxpayers left  holding the bag so to speak. Why is an auditor not required by provincial legislation? There is no credible  oversight of city activities. The federal government should be stepping in when things are so clearly rife with corruption. As well, this all  goes way back. Keep up the excellent work!" ~ "The pretense that the plan is not flawed is bad acting, pure and simple. throwing political weight around does not make it any more true." ~ "I liked your eblast. It was so insightful. I’ve been concerned about this all along, but didn’t know how to express it." ~ "From what I have been reading lately, so many people are finally realizing what is at stake." ~ "The issue is getting tired, much like our downtown"  ~ "Take care. You and your team are drilling the message home."

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"