What’s Windsor’s Population?
Not to be a doomer or anything but some depressing thoughts recently
Having a few discussions with friends, there is speculation out there that Windsor and Essex county’s population is shrinking now by as much as 1,000 people per month. I have no basis for these figures other than the anecdotal evidence many of us see every day. Of course they sound frighteningly high but what if? Its not like people can stick around and wait while our unemployment is at 15% and those long awaited construction jobs will take until 2011 to arrive.
What have you seen? Each month I watch a few employees at my businesses move to Calgary or BC looking for work.
Is anyone in authority even considering this. Will we simply be caught off guard and become reactionary as usual.
Planetizen has an article asking what to do but here’s a chance for our readers to speculate which neighborhoods will be hardest hit by population decline and what we should do.
A few questions
Will our ward boundary adjustments be obsolete before we even decide on them?
What is our emergency plan if we see our city revenue’s drop by 10-20%? What services will be the first to go?
WIll our (hopefully) soon to be negotiated CUPE agreement have to be reopened and renegotiated before the ink is even dry based on the previous question?
What do we do with the increasing amount of vacant lots and houses?
Why is Windsor Still insisting on adding unnecessary new commercial space on Sprucewood?
Where are these new big box developments even getting their financing?
What do we do with all the excess commercial space that is coming available each day? Whats planned for the old Home Depot? Pelissier street? Tecumseh?
We now are watching the current population requiring far less retail space to support it. Consumerism is on the decline and even if with a recovery, few will return to the spendthrift days of the past.
As for all of this stimulus that is now leading to structural deficits. The best way I’ve seen it described is a snake being fed its own tail. Mmmm good, want some more… wait where’s the food coming from?
Post Feedback
1000 people a month sounds conservative. Taking a rough population figure of 200,000 for Windsor alone; 15% of that figure is 30,000 unemployed. Divide that by 12 months and you get 2500 lost jobs per month. You can bet that a large number of them are leaving the area in search of real life. The real scary part lies with the remaining 1500 per month who are banking on Windsor’s recovery. If it doesn’t meet their optimism Windsor will have a huge mess on it’s hands.
That is 15% of the labour force, not total population. Also, if someone leaves the Windsor CMA, they are no longer counted in the labour force for that CMA.
The latest figures from StatsCan indicate that almost 26,000 people are unemployed in the Windsor CMA (this includes Amherstberg, LaSalle, Tecumseh and Lakeshore). The total labour force is almost 179,000 people. All figures are for June 2009, seasonally adjusted and 3-month moving average.
So that means, that right now there are 26,000 people sitting at home without work. These people haven’t moved - at least not when the survey was taken.
What is interesting is that the size of the total labour force has increased by 7,400 people from one year ago. So some people are coming back to Windsor. I expect that this includes post-secondary students unable to find jobs where their college/university is located. The 2011 Census will be revealing, especially in terms of migration data.
For the record, according to the 2006 Census, the total population for the City of Windsor was 216,473. The total labour force was 174,830. For the Windsor CMA the figures were 323,342 and 259,210 respectively.
Vincent, unemployed ex-pats too. The rate of job loss throughout the country is more uniform now. We are not alone in loosing large numbers of jobs (at least full time jobs). Thus, I suspect that some that moved away for work and loose their job, move back to affordable Windsor.
The u-haul in and out stat is the one I would like to know. Not a scientific but something to base the discussion on. Maybe some media types could pick-up the phone and ask for us.
The dropping pop. numbers are also reflected in our dropping crime rate. But don’t tell Windsor Police that, they think they are donig a bang up job. ; )
I know a lot of people are leaving I think the number is also conservative. Becuse let’s not forget the people in this city that are also fleeing to the suburbs.
Where is Windsor’s action plan?
I agree Mark. I think the CUPE negotiations will have to be re-done because we don’t need that many civil employees with our dropping pop.
Why will the contract need to be renegotiated when the City can layoff employees? Both CUPE locals are totally aware that layoffs are coming. Why do you think Local 82 was asking for job security during the life of the contract?
As to the dropping crime rate, well that has been the trend across much of North America over the past decade. It’s not necessarily related to population trends.
Someone did bandy around the 2,000 per month number but even I didn’t want to print that as being so high. I have also seen a few people come back because the promise of jobs elsewhere was not what they’d hoped. However, is there any way to track the amount of people leaving more accurately without having to wait years for census #’s?
I think this is something we need to know
No. Any postcensal figures would be estimates. The Ontario Ministry of Finance publishes intercensal and postcensal population estimates but they are limited to the Census Subdivision level (aka what we used to call Counties).
The Labour Force data collected by StatsCan could be used as a proxy. For example, if the total Labour Force or a certain age group or bracket is declining, you could argue that people are leaving the area.
Labour force characteristics, unadjusted, by census metropolitan area (3 month moving average) June 2008 - June 2009
(Windsor (Ont.),
http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/lfss04g-eng.htm
The above is stating that Windsor/Essex unemployment rate is 14.3%
Windsor (city) Statistics Canada http://tiny.cc/4P5Qs
Everything you ever wanted to know by numbers.
Windsor + Essex county (Census Metropolitan Area) http://tiny.cc/eMngW
“Windsor + Essex county (Census Metropolitan Area)”
Incorrect.
Windsor + Amherstberg + LaSalle + Tecumseh + Lakeshore = Windsor CMA.
Leamington and Kingsville form the Leamington CA. Town of Essex is its own Census Subdivision.
Essex County (City of Windsor + County of Essex + Pelee Island) at http://tiny.cc/0ZLNJ
Downtown gets another blow as reports of the restaurant Three a tasting bar closing, Collins Barrow moving to Walkerville. Peissier is looking pretty desolate these days as is Ouellette South of Park or maybe Wyandotte. International metropolis is reporting another building demo. How do they say they can guarantee strike savings will be returned when no one even knows the budge hole for 2010?
Thanks for the correction VC. Oddly enough the end results are roughly the same. As for “layoffs” , this has alrerady been taking place for some time now. No one in the union is actually losing jobs yet. “Bumping” just trickles everything down to the “pool”. It’s the temps who are losing their jobs. Sorry to hear about Allister. Hopefully he has another venue in the pipe.
Could one look at home sales versus the vacancy rate of rental units with the difference between the two a rough estimate of population growth and/or loss?
Just curious.
As for the ward boundary review becoming “obsolete,” from what I understand based upon the last census, Ward 1 has experienced significant population growth to the demise of Wards 2, 3 and some parts of 4.
Additionally, the “community’s of interest” as highlighted in the ward study consider the annexed lands.
Further, I’ve noticed a common comment in some ward boundary reviews across the province in that they should be looked at every 10 years.
Claiming they could be obsolete could be construed as “do nothing” when in fact they do need some realignment.
“We now are watching the current population requiring far less retail space to support it. Consumerism is on the decline and even if with a recovery, few will return to the spendthrift days of the past.”
And yet the canal proposal would create additional commercial space. And with “consumerism” on the decline will this sit empty?
Or simply move existing commericial/residential space to the core, creating dead zones elsewhere?
Chris S, you misunderstand the canal plan. The business case makes it clear that the canal strategy is to shift development from the edges to the core of the city because of the slow growth and increasing fragmentation and inefficiencies. The strategy of the canal plan, us I understand it, is to encourage an acceleration in growth, leverage the growth we do get and re-direct this growth to the core to prevent what you suggest.
Not in favor of a “do nothing approach to ward boundary review, only that they should maybe try to be proactive and change more or go down to the 8 ward option if thats where our population is trending.
adding new commercial to the canal would not necessarily be bad if it was accompanied by an increased population growth. If you want to attract residents to a specific area, neighborhood support businesses are going to be necessary. People living in city center west may not want to walk down to Pelissier for some basic needs and conveniences.
Scaling down and residential intensification in the core is going to require a shift. Call it dead zones if you want but there will be winners and losers.
We’re already seeing “ghost boxes” where the home depot used to be and at the Kmart on Lauzon and Tecumseh. There will be more of those to come.
Yes, because no community, even successful ones, ever go through cycles, ever go through a ‘bad time’. Come on Mark, your entering the twilight zone.
Where exactly does the business case say that Edwin?
Because on the very first page in the Executive Summary it states the purposes of the canal:
What is the Windsor Canal Project?
Similar to canals constructed in Cities such as San Antonio and Oklahoma City, the Windsor canal would be a recreational waterway and pedestrian pathway which would wind its way through a vibrant entertainment and business district. The canal would be constructed immediately west of the downtown business area and would be designed to stimulate new
investment in Windsor and specifically in the downtown.
Lining the canal would be shops, restaurants, galleries, cultural
and other attractions and event venues. The canal pathway would link the canal to the existing Riverwalk pedestrian trail.
Why a Canal?
Windsor’s economy has been devastated by a number of recent events, particularly the decline of the auto sector, massive reductions in US visitation, and increased gaming competition in Michigan. The downtown area is in serious decline owing in part to extensive suburban commercial development, but also because Windsor residents view downtown more as a destination for visiting gaming and bar patrons and not a destination for them.
The canal would be specifically designed as an amenity for both Windsor residents and tourist segments that are not currently being attracted to the City, such as families, cultural tourists, and non-gamblers.
….In summary, the canal project is aimed at addressing very specific weaknesses in the Windsor economy, including the need to diversify, tourism and the downtown core. The goal for the project would be to establish a beach head for future economic prosperity and a new recreation and entertainment opportunity for residents from Windsor and the surrounding region.
______________________________
But if you can point me to the spot in the Business Case Study that states there is another purpose to the proposal, please, I will stand corrected.
“We now are watching the current population requiring far less retail space to support it. Consumerism is on the decline and even if with a recovery, few will return to the spendthrift days of the past.”
Your response is inconsistent with your prior rationale as stated above.
“Call it dead zones if you want but there will be winners and losers.”
Really?
Those same dead zones will have to be serviced. Residents needs in these hypothetical dead zones will still have to be supported.
All that would accomplish is moving the costs/dead zone to another area for another BIA or neighbourhood to deal with.
Creating a new neighborhood in Windsor west will require new residential support businesses regardless of whether there is a canal attached.
I assume that people concerned with deadzones would be motivated to oppose new big box such as the banwell rezoning and the sprucewoood development.
The housing market study would let you know where the people you are luring are coming from. It would also allow you to target new residents to Windsor, Retiree’s for the 100 mile peninsula plan. Even if windsor is having a net loss of residents, there are still people coming here. 39 new housing starts last quarter and none of them in the core.
Those “dead zones” as you call them already are being created and grown through the STATUS QUO or any plan to do nothing other than concentrate on roads and sewers preferred by yourself. Revitalizing city cente would not only eliminate one dead zone but if done right it would help to stimulate the dead zones in the adjacent neighborhoods.
Don’t want to really engage you beyond that Chris S. Seems like you are just trying to aggravate those who blog or support the canal plan.
The purpose of Windsor Canal Project Business Case, is to make the business case.
As far as how it helps the core, here is what I find doing a quick 2 minute scan:
Why a Canal?
Windsor’s economy has been devastated by a number of recent events, particularly the decline of the auto sector, massive reductions in US visitation, and increased gaming competition in Michigan. The downtown area is in serious decline owing in part to extensive suburban commercial development, but also because Windsor residents view downtown more as a destination for visiting gaming and bar patrons and not a destination for them.
…
Windsor’s once vibrant downtown is now plagued with significant vacancies and a widespread rejection by the City’s residential population. The reason for this, can only partly be attributed to the substantial peripheral commercial development that has occurred in the south and east ends of the City. More directly related to the decline of the core, is the conflict between the tourist and residential markets. The telephone surveys of Windsor residents conducted as part of the commercial study, revealed that people living in the City do not view the downtown as a place for them, but rather for the millions of casino and bar patrons with very limited tourism agendas. Unless the City invests in community based infrastructure together with attractions aimed at diversifying the downtown tourism base, the core will continue to lack relevance to Windsor residents and experience further decline in all but a few limited commercial sectors.
…
The recommendations in this report point very strongly to a need to redirect a portion of future commercial growth to the downtown and community main streets. If the downtown is to revitalize, peripheral commercial development must be controlled and should be tied to future population increases. Coupled with this, the City must also invest and provide incentives for future commercial growth to be attracted to the core. The canal represents an excellent and creative example of this type of investment.
That second paragraph you quote has to be the best example of total and complete bullshit that I have ever read in my life. It is so loaded, so biased, I can’t believe that someone would actually attach their name to that report.
“The reason for this, can only partly be attributed to the substantial peripheral commercial development that has occurred in the south and east ends of the City.”
Yes, because if we didn’t allow any big box development to occur the downtown would be the only place for commercial. Hogwash. Windsorites would be driving out to LaSalle and Tecumseh for big box commercial.
“More directly related to the decline of the core, is the conflict between the tourist and residential markets.”
So peripheral commercial development isn’t the main reason. Aye carumba.
“The telephone surveys of Windsor residents conducted as part of the commercial study, revealed that people living in the City do not view the downtown as a place for them, but rather for the millions of casino and bar patrons with very limited tourism agendas.”
But isn’t going downtown to see a pretty new canal a “very limited tourism” agenda?
“The recommendations in this report point very strongly to a need to redirect a portion of future commercial growth to the downtown and community main streets.”
Of course the recommendations point to future commercial growth. Without it, we couldn’t maintain or justify the canal. We need the increase in property tax revenue to fund this endeavour.
Yes, because if we didn’t allow any big box development to occur the downtown would be the only place for commercial. Hogwash. Windsorites would be driving out to LaSalle and Tecumseh for big box commercial.
In London Ontario, they don’t allow other levels of gov’t to build outside the core, They don’t allow tall commercial bldgs outside the core. The industrial park that Taxpayers built infrastructure of 4 foot sewer pipes would not have allowed offices with 4 inch drains to be connected to them. The fact that they changed policies when they rezoned the pillette plant acknowledges past mistakes
Its not just about big box. But you say Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead? just keep building commercial space in a city that has the highest commercial vacancy rate in Canada? I think thats the only complete and utter bullsh** that exists. Especially when we see the greyfield sites of ghost boxes from the past at the Home Depot site and the Lauzon/Tecumseh K/Wallmart.
Not to mention the fact that big box developments are unwalkable, pedestrian blights on the community with their parking lagoons. I’d like to see a developer/builder living next to one of the abominations they’ve developed. Councillors should have a simple rule of never approving a project that they themselves would not want to live next to.
“But isn’t going downtown to see a pretty new canal a “very limited tourism” agenda?”
Not if it also makes you want to live there. Only a housing market study would determine that.
I would have never supported the Candarell. The Casino/convention center could have had a much bigger impact on downtown if the CIP’s at Glengarry Marentette and Downtown were ever completed. No one has ever tried to capture a % of the casino workers to find out what would entice them to live downtown
“In London Ontario, they don’t allow other levels of gov’t to build outside the core”
Hmmm, that is interesting, seeing as London or any municipality cannot prevent the Province or the Canadian government from doing whatever they want to do with any land they own.
Take the whole New Jail charade as an example. The Province did not have to rezone the land. The Province does not have to submit a site plan control application. And finally, the Province does not need a building permit to construct the new jail. Why? Because the Province is exempt from all municipal by-laws.
I see you are resorting to your old tactic of making up things. Where did I say “Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead? just keep building commercial space in a city that has the highest commercial vacancy rate in Canada?” I said no such thing and my reply had nothing to do with ‘building more commercial space’.
“Yes, because no community, even successful ones, ever go through cycles, ever go through a ‘bad time’. Come on Mark, your entering the twilight zone.”
Thats one huge difference a scaledown sees more than just a cycle going on here. We at scaledown believe we’re going through a fundamental shift. This is about a long term reduction in our standard of living as defined by the consumerism that is used to calculate that number.
We at scaledown believe that a reduction in standard of living does not have to equate to a reduction in Quality of life, if we changed how we did things in our cities by following our mission statement and vision statements.
An expected response re: your last paragraph.
However, the bigger point for those other than Mr. Boscariol who are interested is - the business case of the canal project, from my perspective is not about residential intensification. It’s about supporting tourism and creating addtional commercial capacity.
I’ve been very hesitant to jump aboard the pro-canal bandwagon. I can oppose big box development all I want - the reality is, under the current legal framework, any efforts to “kill” them will be met with limited success.
I lived through the malls will rejuvinate the core. They didn’t. They killed them.
I’ve read the promise of the Canderel, the St. Clair College etc.
Where I would agree with Mr. Boscariol, without an overall comprehensive plan - and more importantly - a committment to follow through on said plan - any effort to “revitalize” the core will ultimately fail.
Does this mean “do nothing?” Absolutely not, contrary to what critics of the “opposers” to the canal will have you believe.
But the “do something” is not necessarly that of a canal.
Despite what some may say, roads and sewers contribute to “perception” as well - equally important. But most important is giving retirees the financial ability to live in an urban core.
That means jobs. And not the short term - but important - transitionary infrastructure jobs.
Our infrastructure system has suffered from years of neglect. And once it’s built you have to maintain it.
Any read of the Provincial legislation will tell you that.
So attempts to minimize the importance of roads and sewers, in a city that has complained of a $700-million infrastructure deficit will fall upon my deaf ears.
While we have tied up prime development land for the last 20 years, housing has continued to be built - as Mr. Boscariol has highlighted.
39 housing units in the last quarter is potentially 39 units in a low-rise condominium.
I’d rather take the money proposed for a canal to improve transit, bicycle infrastructure and cleaning up our brownfields - to name but a few - and build the infrastructure for an aging population.
Two different views, same goal.
A canal, from my perspective is designed to support tourism and additional commercial development - and without an overall comprehensive plan to address the issues that have caused the decline in these two sectors, the “canal” will be a lovely waterway through empty parking lots - or, should it succeed, bring the entertainment district further west into the city, emptying out Erie Street, Ottawa Street and Ouellette.
Aggravate? Not likely.
Short of resurrecting the dead, the canal “could” be responsible for the complete economic recovery of the world.
Not true Chris S. The first and foremost pillar of the canal proposal is to bring residents (urban village) to the area. That has always been the plan. The added bonuses are tourism and business intensification (which results from added population).
The urban village is to attract retirees and young families which has no alternative than to go to the suburbs. Edwin is correct in his assessment.
Not true? Edwin quoted material from the business case that says otherwise. But I digress.
To date, the canal is supposed:
1. Attract new businesses downtown.
2. Attract residents to visit the downtown.
3. Attract people to live in the ‘urban village’.
4. Make the downtown look prettier.
5. Introduce a water feature in the downtown.
6. Whatever else downtown supporters can think of.
Wasn’t Canderal supposed to revitalize the downtown? Wasn’t the Casino supposed to revitalize the downtown? Wasn’t the Palace Theatres supposed to revitalize the downtown? Example after example of grand projects that have failed to do anything for the downtown.
But here we are, pimping yet another grand project with questionable benefits. Heck, we can’t even decide what the main benefit of this white elephant will be.
And for the love of god, the majority of the San Antonio Riverwalk is along an actual river not a man-made canal. San Antonio took a natural feature and augmented it. Canal extensions were built to serve a few mega-projects.
“Despite what some may say, roads and sewers contribute to “perception” as well - equally important. But most important is giving retirees the financial ability to live in an urban core. ”
Actually a large tax base to be able to pay for that infrastrucure is what will give retirees the financial ability to live in Windsor. If we keep hollowing out our city, We will not be able to afford the infrastructure and the amenities that retirees desire.
A proper retirement community strategy is actually an Active Aging Strategy which means giving seniors some benefit other than the facilities to get sick and die. Windsor needs to be a place for retirees to BE WELL AND LIVE. A canal district could possibly accomplish that. I don’t know as there has been no housing market study directed at them.
Roads and sewers are great, their a basic tenant. But the communities that succeed do far more than that. Look at any successful community and you will see an investment in programming (art) and beautification.
In Richard Florida’s new book “choose your city” one basic assertion is aesthetics are the primary factor when choosing a new city. Theoretically, the canal could accomplish that goal of connecting the riverfront to the neighborhood and creating an aestheticly pleasing signature feature for the entire city.
But Roads and Sewers, albeit a foundation to build on draw nothing.t
Never in my entire 42 years did I hear someone say, “Gosh Darn, look at the sewer system on that city!!!!!” or “Tarnations!!! Thats some mighty fine roadways ya gots there, I’m going to move there just for that”.
We need to change peoples perception about living in the core and roads and sewers simply aren’t enough
Your argument is with this research not with me
People may not say “Look at the sewer system” but they do say “Gee, I’ve had enough of my basement flooding, I’m moving to the burbs or beyond”.
But you do realize that infrastructure isn’t just roads and sewers. It’s many other things.
It’s putting all the hydro lines underground. What did I see downtown this week? Enwin replacing old wooden poles with new wooden poles. It’s the 21st century and we have above ground wires on wooden poles downtown. Gives the downtown that lovely rustic look.
It’s about making sure that telecommunications infrastructure is state-of-the art. It’s about replacing dead trees with new ones using deep wells.
It’s about using a standard design for all street and wayfinding signs.
Aesthetics are important but M.O.M. is dead on: you don’t paint over dry rot.
I agree with Mita on this, the sewer project should be a priority. Let the River and the Land Sustain Us.
Besides, .SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF DEMARK.
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/something-rotten-state-denmark
Cart before the horse and lots of patience. No one will disagree that aesthetics are a key draw and no one will disagree that sewers are not that sexy. BUT! Putting paint over dry rot has no life expectency. We have to do it right the first time. Sorry to say but the sewers come first. Patience has to prevail until it is time to build the big one. That…is what infrastructure is all about.
I’m also someone who believes that the sewer overflow project should be a priority. Simply put, “The river and the land sustain us.”
I would also suggest that investing in sound infrastructure would go a long way towards attracting residents from LaSalle and Tecumseh into Windsor (who else can we realistically attract to move here?) as these residents do not tolerate flooding basements and the like.
Many people I know who work in the city but have moved out have told me that “voted with their feet” in protest of how the city runs its services. Another taxpayer-paid white elephant will keep them away even longer.
I would like to see a comprehensive plan to revitalize downtown — preferably not done by a real-estate shopping center consulting firm
The State of Michigan has a Main Street program that has worked with 15 cities to help revitalize their downtowns. BC has a similar program called SmartGrowth that works at fixing the core of their cities. The Project for Public Places (www.pps.org) has been great work for 30 years now. There is expertise in this area. We should draw on it.
Vincent, if we have issues with what the canal business case suggests let’s have the export authors of the report back. And this time let’s give them the opportunity to explain their work!
When we don’t want to listen to what the exports have to say, SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF DEMARK.
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/something-rotten-state-denmark
It can’t be an either or choice between roads and sewers and the other things. We must be able to do both, we must walk AND chew gum at the same time.
M.O.M. can you name an example of a successful city you’d find attractive that has exclusively concentrated on roads and sewers?
The cities I’ve been given examples as models for Windsor are Kalamazoo, Burlington Vermont, Kingston Ontario. Kalamazoo focused on farmers markets, wayfinding signage, streetscaping, districting, banner programs, Arts incubators and residential intensification projects, educational institution partnerships
I think its wreckless to devise a strategy for which you can provide no successful example. I don’t want people experimenting with a strategy of exclusively roads and sewers if they cannot provide a successful example of it working.
I wonder if you can rise to my challenge, but even if you could give an example outside of Texas, I can give you tenfold the number of success stories using scaledown policies
I can provide endless examples of success stories that use the strategies I endorse, proven time and time again. The only questionable risk in what I propose is the very common occurence of faulty implementation. The strategy is sound, the way you implement it is the only risk.
P.S. above I think its ironic that those who think that they are being conservatie with their roads and sewers strategy to revitalize the city are in my opinion the real high risk takers as they have no idea how their gamble will turn out. Palm Springs California almost died as a city when former Mayor Sonny Bono took the conservative approach.
I also don’t understand why the stimulus money has not been approved for the stormwater retention basin. Here’s a shovel ready project thats desperately needed and we’re still waiting. Every day this project is delayed is a crime. Largest freshwater reserve in the world and we treat it like a toilet
Its frustrating to see all the effort and money being thrown at Global Warming (oops, I guess the new name of the day is climate change) while forgetting to fight good old fashioned pollution. Or will the junk science now classify CO2 as a Pollutant which is patently ridiculous. (BTW, I”m not a climate change denier, just hate that we’ve put it above fighting air and water pollution).
No scrubbers on coal plants because they don’t reduce C02. In what bizzaro world does that statement make any sense? Oh but we can feel all morally superior while shipping record amounts of coal to china and india where they put it in plants that have drastically fewer pollution controls than we do and watch the pollution drift back over BC and California.
Some will have others believe that addressing the $700-million infrastructure deficit as sited by the city - to replace existing infrastructure - is a “high-risk” venture.
High-risk? I strongly disagree.
Years of neglect, fuelled by “politics” has compounded the problem that still has to be addressed in an adequate way.
The same “politics” driving the “legacies” we see evolving today.
Tax-and-spend is a gamble that has proven time and time again to fail from a taxpayer perspective.
Mr. Boscariol should clarify whether or not the “city” of Palm Springs was a charter city from the period of 1988 to 1992 when Mr. Bono was Mayor and what the economy of that city was dependent upon during and upto the time period.
Then again, I guess we could always shift the residential and industrial tax burden on to small business to do this.
Contrary to what the author above has written, storm water rentention infrastructure funding has been approved as was announced on June 16, 2009:
Approved projects:
Retention treatment basin — Total: $60 million;
Share: $20 million — Est. jobs: 645
Project description: Construction of a retention treatment basin and combine sewer overflow interceptor sewer on the Detroit River waterfront between Glengarry Avenue and Aylmer Avenue. RTBs are satellite treatment devices that are self-contained units providing primary treatment to sewage overflows.
________________________________
In fact, it looks like some prep work has started (not sure if related) but Riverside Drive West has been closed and work is beginning digging up the riverfront.
“Tax-and-spend” where is the tax part?
If we spend money now on things that grow our economy, improve the efficiency of our economy, and reduce per-capital costs isn’t that a “SPEND-AND-REDUCE-TAXES” strategy?
Let’s here what the experts have to say. Let’s invite back the canal plan team and this time let’s give them a chance to speak.
How many more success story examples would it take for me to give you before you’d consider you may not be right? Conversely, If you could just give me a few successful examples of your exclusively roads and sewers strategy in practice I’d definitely reconsider my beliefs. I’d happily acknowledge you were right if you could only show it.
Canadian examples are preferred as thats the standard I normally have to rise to but, I’d consider any successful city.
Problem is that if you exclusively work on roads and sewers there is no date where you will ever be finished. Its a trap or trick question.
Every successfully city has an infrastructure deficit, no successful city has ever set a policy of ignoring other aspects in lieu of exclusively working on the infrastructure
Again you advise a policy that no city has ever tried successfully, if thats not risky, what is???
I wouldn’t suggest neglecting infrastructure, and would advocate to weigh spending more heavily on it, but beautification is incredibly important. I Strongly applaud the Mayor’s beautification efforts on Dougall, even with the strike it still looks infinitely better than it did before.
The fact that you cannot name an example of a city that has followed your advice is extremely telling. I’m a pretty simple guy who likes to follow tried and proven success strategies such as Kinsgston, Kalamazoo Michigan, Burlington Vermont.
How many more success story examples would it take for me to give you before you’d consider you may not be right? If you could just give me a few examples of your strategy in practice I’d definitely reconsider my beliefs
1.
Mark Boscariol on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 8:20 am reply Reply (Comments won’t nest below this level)
“Yes, because no community, even successful ones, ever go through cycles, ever go through a ‘bad time’. Come on Mark, your entering the twilight zone.”
Thats one huge difference a scaledown sees more than just a cycle going on here. We at scaledown believe we’re going through a fundamental shift. This is about a long term reduction in our standard of living as defined by the consumerism that is used to calculate that number.
We at scaledown believe that a reduction in standard of living does not have to equate to a reduction in Quality of life, if we changed how we did things in our cities by following our mission statement and vision statements.
ALso your statement about the jail is a bit misleading, the province has not done an end run around a municipality in a long time. Although they have the power theoretically, its not one that is used. Sort of like the federal “notwithstanding” clause. London might not have absolute power but they can and do influence
Go ask london about their policies, this is what they told me. They also have a policy of reusing existing space for gov’t offices vs. building new.
I don’t have to ask London about their policies. I’m an urban planner by trade. I am fully aware what powers municipalities have and don’t have. They don’t have the power to tell upper levels of government what they can and cannot do.
London may have a policy in the Official Plan that encourages government offices and facilities be located in the core area. But that is a policy not a requirement. The Province is not bound by any local planning documents.
What exactly is misleading? The power the Province has is not theoretical. It is real. And it is “sort of” nothing like the Federal “notwithstanding” clause. (You do realize that the Notwithstanding Clause is a temporary measure?)
“the province has not done an end run around a municipality in a long time.”
You may want to reconsider that statement.
The Province has does plenty of ‘end runs’ around municipalities. Ask Simcoe County what they think of the ‘end run’ the Province did around the uncompleted Simcoe County Growth Plan in reaching a secret deal at the OMB with developers to allow a huge employment zone in Bradford West Gwillimbury (an end run that was mentioned here in scaledown.
Or ask the municipalities in the GTA that had to suddenly cope with the Places to Grow Act. Or ask the City of Brantford and Brant County who had their boundary adjustment agreement nixed by the Province. On and On. All the while the Province maintains that land use planning is a local matter.
Vincent, more than just the legal power, in my opinion, the province has a kind of moral responsibility to step-in when things are as dysfunctional as they are here in the Windsor and Essex region.
Why does the province step-in in Toronto to stump-out “turf-wars” but not in the mad-max world that is the Windsor and Essex region?
We need a frank discussion about governance within the city and the entire region.
Politicians shunned in transit planning overhaul
http://www.thestar.com/article/610888
“London may have a policy in the Official Plan that encourages government offices and facilities be located in the core area. But that is a policy not a requirement. The Province is not bound by any local planning documents.”
At least having a policy is leaps and bounds ahead of Windsor. It also sends a message and forces the province to justify its actions. The province isn’t going to set a city’s policies but they may be inclined to follow them if they are proven popular amongst voters
Other than that Vince, the rest of your statements, I do stand corrected.
The reason why I was mistaken is that I was mainly referring to the statement that Minister Gerretson wrote in an email a few years back saying the province had a policy of not imposing its will on municipalities. I had asked for his intervention when it came to regional government in Windsor and Essex County.
I also agree with you that the province should step in sometimes. Especially when it comes to imposing an effective regional government in Essex County.
The provincial liberals knowingly do the wrong thing when it comes to regionalism in Windsor Essex County.
Lets see - garbage men on strike …. parks and recreation on strike … taxi’s on strike ….. So your city is dwindling, tax funds simply cannot sustain life and 15% unemplyment yet somehow in Windsorites retarded heads they need to go on stike to get “what they deserve”
Windsor has one problem only and its not government or the “economy” its the people. Windsor has some of the rudest, ugliest, laziest people to walk the planet and they think they are “entitled”. You are chewing off your own fingers for lunch Windsor. Your only hope to to get rid of all the lazy jerkoffs who think putting in time means getting a paycheck. Heres a grand scenario - forget time - how about you get paid commision style only on what you DO.
All Windsorites do is bitch and moan. The government is you Windsor. You pretend your hands are tied by government but that doesnt stop you from going on strike does it? Because thats easy - all you have to do is be lazy to go on strike so that one works.
Unfortunately the people that leave Windsor are the ones with enough get and go to make a move. The laziest and worst will just sit on the porch and rot. “Guv’ment … 3rd shift … it just aint fair ….” Pathetic talk heard round the town. Cant even visit anymore.
P.S. empty casinos do not make money. What is Windsor going to do when Ceasars closes? It will close. No one wants to visit and have to look or hear the Windsor nonsense while smelling garbage. I guess they could take a stroll thru the ghetto and enjoy Windsors lovely dowtown. If getting a tugjob and having a falafel is what you’re into. If not you’ll run out of things to do. Even Starbucks is going to close. Maybe hit the Tunnel BBQ for oven baked ribs … what the … a BBQ restaurant that does BBQ anything. Classy Windsor … classy. Now wheres my scooter cuz walmart has pie for $1 … momma needs her cream puffs and smokes if she’s gonna strike hard today.
Tim, easy, you want to be accused of being guilty of the bitching and moaning your accusing others of.
Remember, ya gotta keep perspective. I was told once by the head of the International Downtown Association that the difference between a great downtown and an mediocre downtown is 5 champions. We don’t need the entire city to make a great city, we just need a dozen more than we have.
Whenever I get down and cynical, I think of great Windsorites like John Morris Russel, I think of the achievements such as citizfaction.
As much as Windsor mucks things up, we also do a lot of great things. We have a world class riverfront park. In the past few years all our BIA’s have flowers up. We have attractive gateways for the first time.
Look at the new festivals such as Fringe, the upcoming international Air show.
Restoration of Heritage wonders such as the Paul Martin House and a hell of a new pharmacy in walkerville by the same gentleman. Downtown has a wonderful new Farmers Market.
Downtown street closures are generating new problems of too much noise. Thats a great problem because it is easily solveable and its a damn site better than the problem of tumble weeds going across the street
PERSPECIVE, MAN. PERSPECTIVE.