Which position will the Chamber of Commerce present Monday?
The Chamber of commerce will present their position which I assume is their stated policy on the official plan
However, my concern is that they have stated at a meeting with myself and a separate meeting at WECEC that the the Chamber “does not oppose the intent of the official Plan background documents, only their wording”
The planning department representative from the City of Windsor and Alan Halberstadt can both verify the above claim as well as all of those in attendance at the WECEC meeting I was at.
However, thats not what the wording proposals suggested by the Chamber of Commerce as well as their official policy from their website say.
My main contention is this: Do we allow or prevent wording that recommends restrictions regarding new residential or agricultural land be rezoned commercial.
Mr. Dan McCullough, The official Policy from the Chamber of commerce (which says “Consider the widest possible scope for future development without restriction”)
Now the Chamber must represent one of two views, their public statement that they support the intent of the documents which is worded very clear, or they represent the view of no restrictions which they have clearly stated. The documents recommend that the city make policies restricting rezoning of land to commercial while there is no population growth or employment growth. (THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT POLICY IN THEMSELVES)
If the Windsor Essex Regional Chamber of Commerce continue to claim they agree with the intent but want wording changes while still maintaining their official policy then they are being dishonest. I don’t want to pick a fight with the Chamber but how else can a reasonable person interpret this. One document clearly recommends restrictions while the other doesn’t. The administration also agrees that the Chamber requests in certain areas will change the intent of the documents.
This is important because we protect our mainstreets or they will die. 1 in 4 storefronts in all BIA’s are empty as reported today. What do you think adding more commercial capacity’s gonna do if we don’t increase population or employment in our city???
Post Feedback
Update: Administration has asked for the issue to be deferred. I hope that this can be resolved without having to get into a public display at council between the Chamber of Commerce and myself. On an issue that few people will understand, it will just embarrass our city. The Administration has already agreed to many of the Chamber’s requests, if they’d only just leave it alone, I would be happy to as well.
I feel like the Chamber has either painted themselves into a corner with their statements at meetings and to Administration being diametrically opposed to their written policy. (claiming they support the intent of the planning documents while having a written policy that has several key recommendations opposite to the recommendations in the Planning background documents)
On an issue where the members of the Chamber of Commerce are split, you’d just hope that they remain silent. I assume the Board of the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t believe how many local independent businesses oppose this policy that is supported mainly by developers of commercial property
Unfortunately by siding with one type of business over another, the Chamber of commerce is contributing to a wedge being driven into our community. They can be upset with me for bringing attention to this issue, but I’m just the messenger, I didn’t create the issue. I do, however, feel the direct threat to my business by its effect of emptying Windsor’s core. 1 in 4 storefronts empty, Junk just closed down, Crows nest closed down, I’ve heard rumours of 2 more large restaurants downtown on their last legs.
If someone from the Chamber’s listening, after the deferral, I’d be happy to see these documents put on a consent agenda and not speak to them if the Chamber would do the same. Provided that any further wording changes truly didn’t change their intent.
Otherwise, I’d be happy to listen to anyone explain to me what I’m missing in the Chambers’ policy position