A Deal with the Devil

After Monday night’s thrashing at the hands of city council, minus Alan Halberstadt, I went home and sulked for a little while. Not because I hate losing, which I do, but because they failed to even acknowledge that we had raised legitimate issues. Sure, it was a lot of information very quickly. I don’t dispute that fact, but the information was there. They got an earful during our presentation, had a hardcopy in front of them and got the opportunity for reinforcement via Halberstadt’s Q&A. Yet they still missed everything we tried to say.

The sticking point for council seemed to be the promised $4.8 million in annual tax revenues and 1500 jobs for the area. Although we had empirical evidence that showed that tax revenues would not cover the increased costs of developing this tract of land, nor would the promised jobs cover the losses in the existing retail sector, council did not want to listen.

Ironically, The Lynn Martin Show was dominated by citizens calling in opposing the Big Box development Tuesday morning. (Thanks to Al McKinnon for bringing this to our attention). I had actually emailed the AM800 Morning Show our power point presentation shortly after hearing Eddie Francis, on his regular Tuesday morning pit stop with Mike and Lisa, applaud this new development then admit that the city was going to need to either cut services or increase taxes to meet the reduced budget. He even had the audacity to suggest that this was the way it was and we simply had no other choice. I’m pretty sure that Mayor Francis sat through our presentation on Monday. Was he not paying attention? If we get the transcript our audio from the Morning Show and The Lynn Martin show [and permission from the station] we’ll post it here for you for those of you missed it.

Though it seems that critical mass is on our side, council has failed to echo the voice of the people. I have a suggestion for council and the Coco Development Group to win back the support of the public -- back the development with a surety bond. Forcing Coco to restore and lease, or dispose of, the old Royal Bank building downtown is not out of the question. The real clincher would be to have them waive all reductions in property taxes for vacant buildings within the city limits. This shouldn’t apply just to the West end retail development, but all vacant property held by Coco Development and subsidiaries. (I know how the numbered corporation game works!)

Remember, their “expert” claimed that Windsor was not over-stored and that we could absorb another 420,000 sq ft of retail “without too much impact” to existing retailers. Alan Halberstadt pointed out a number of buildings that have been abandoned, or will shortly be abandoned, by Big Box retailers. While Windsor is intimately familiar with brownfields – abandoned buildings, especially Big Box stores, known as greyfields -- are a new addition to our failing reality. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize the urban blight of abandoned superstores through reduced taxes for vacant buildings. Let’s see if Jenny Coco and crew are willing to back up their experts testimony with cold, hard cash.

I’m not sure if the city has the courage to stand up to such a “responsible corporate citizen” as the Coco Group, though I certainly hope they try. As for fighting the good fight, it’s not over yet. This was just a zoning change. There is still fight left in the purveyors of SDW and the citizens of Windsor. This development will not go forward uncontested, even if the odds are 10-1.

The reality of intentional ignorance

You win some and you lose some. What I lost last night at the City Council meeting was any hope that our elected officials actually listen to the delegates.

If they did actually listen, they would have heard empirical evidence that the benefits to the city that Jenny Coco's development were offering may not live up to the promises. Councilor after councilor turned on their microphones and pledged their undying devotion to this "Good Corporate Citizen" whose project they must support. Coco development did provide a ton of green space (their Ambassador golf course!) to the area. Funny, they didn't mention the biggest chunk of rotting real estate in the downtown (156 Ouellette, right next to Shanfield's) is owned by this corporation, and is easily one of the most derelict buildings in the core. Their M.O.? Hollow out the core, making the fringes (and their vast holdings of land) seem attractive.

Our councilors raved about these 1,500 jobs the development would provide. Funny, Josh and I found mountains of evidence pointing to the fact that big box retail normally costs a community jobs – not provides them. Who do they think would work there anyways? Windsor residents? No - the bulk of the jobs would go to LaSalle residents. But that's what Windsor does – provides bedroom communities employment, and then they take their paycheques home to their suburban tax havens. They can't hope for anything larger than minimum wage anyways.

Thank goodness for Fulvio Valentinis, who gave everyone watching in TV-Land a planning lesson in urban sprawl. Apparently, all those experts and academics around the globe are wrong – this type of development DOESN'T increase urban sprawl. I'm going to call James Howard Kunstler right now and let him know all his work to date is incorrect and he should go back to writing fiction.

Councilor Lewenza – municipalities CAN combat sprawl. Tell that to Guelph and Vancouver, who have successfully held back attempts at monotonizing their local economy. Tell that to Business Week magazine who warned their readers that mega-retailers may not be all they're cracked up to be. And tell that to PriceWaterhouseCoopers who called big box retail "risky propositions. These are not hippy-dippy capitalist-hating commies we're citing here. These are business people who have seen through the false promise of big box development.

One by one, they praised Coco and ignored the warnings. Even going so far as praising a "highly regarded" local environmentalist who endorsed this project (thanks Postma, for proving that you didn't hear a word the other highly regarded environmentalists were saying) It was an evening that leaves you with the idea that this municipal boat doesn't have anyone at the rudder.

Once again, the lone voice of reason at the meeting last night was Councilor Halberstadt, who warned the rest of council that if we continue down this road we would have more empty big-boxes littering the landscape, more traffic congestion and more closing local businesses in favour of minimum wage employment. He agreed that we must study this topic further, but unfortunately, the rest of council seemed quite content with the status quo. Thank you, Alan, for at least making the attempt.

I am not looking at this exercise as a failure. Sure, we didn't get what we wanted, but did we ever elevate the dialogue. My coworkers were discussing the perils of big box this morning when I arrived at work. They never discuss anything besides cars and sports – so this is a huge development. Guaranteed, items like this will be on the councils agenda again in the future, and when that time comes, they cannot feign ignorance. They are going to be hearing a lot about this decision in the future.

Interested in reading some of our supporting documents? In our presentation and council package, we asked council to defer the decision until a comprehensive Economic Impact Study could be conducted to determine the effect more big box retail mega-centres would have on this community. Here's pretty much everything supplied to our councillors last night, including two examples of what an impact study discovered for other communities.

What we've been saying all along...

While brushing up for our council presentation on Monday evening, I stumbled across this quote on the National Main Street Institute's website (click on the picture at left to go to their website).

"The Main Street approach is incremental; it is not designed
to produce immediate change. Because they often fail to address the underlying causes of commercial district decline, expensive improvements, such as pedestrian malls or sports arenas, do not always generate the desired economic results. In order to succeed, a long-term revitalization effort requires careful attention to every aspect of downtown — a process that takes time and requires leadership and local capacity building."

I took the liberty of italicizing the humdinger for Windsor. As a city, or more correctly as taxpayers, we just spent $65 million to build a new arena that, according to the wise folks at the National Main Street Institute, will not pull our city out of the tailspin economics we are experiencing. The recommendations of the Institute are a huge part of the platform that we are going to council with. According to the latest numbers, their member organizations are seeing a ROI of over $25 for every dollar invested in running the program initiatives. That is HUGE! That would mean that Windsor would have the potential to see $1.625 BILLION from investments into the city if we had invested the arena money in a program like this. Sure, it would take about 3 years to start seeing some real returns, escalating quickly over the next decade, but there is no silver bullet to the problems in Windsor.

Take a moment to look at the NMSI website. We hope that, after Monday night, council is going take this pattern of development and run with it.

48 (+1) Hour Flick Fest

The basis behind the local component at the Windsor International Film Festival is that we wanted to maintain our mandate of showing critically acclaimed films from Canada and the world to Windsor.

As a group that included local film makers, we felt that it would not further the goals of local film makers to show their films to an audience that didn't necessarily want to see them. Our idea of assisting local film makers is to get them the resources they need to be able to make world class films that will be shown outside of Windsor.

First we want to showcase their talents in a way that is fun and receptive to our audience. The 48 Hour Flickfest accomplishes that http://www.48hourflickfest.com/. This idea, which was brought to me by Dylan Pearce is something that I am confident will grow to a bi-national favorite. Already, there are people in Detroit who have asked how they can become a part of this particular event next year. First Prize is a local film makers package made up of $1000 of gifts from House of Toast, Mediacity, Edcom, Local restaurants, Unique Video, Windsor Municipal Shadow. Thanks to all these sponsors that came forward. Also we will be showing these contestants films on Cogeco, with the winner appearing on Plugged In.

Just in case you don't know a 48 hour film is a contest where film makers are given a subject, prop and line of dialogue Friday night at 7 pm with only 48 hours to turn in a completed 2-4 minute film. It is an amazing testimony to the talent of these local teams to be able to complete the project.

WIFF is also bringing down officials from the Ontario Media Development Corporation. So that we can have them inform our local filmmaking community about industry standards that have to be adhered to for obtaining funding.

Of course we want to include the showing of local films in our festival, however we want to show films that have received accolades such as Mike McNamarra's 100 films and a funeral and Matt Gallagher's Hi Ho: The Rise and Fall of Grumpy Burger.

Most of all we need everyone's support, this non profit festival (currently seeking charitable tax status) needs the support of sponsors and the public. That support will only be forthcoming if we show that our community demands this type of cultural entertainment. Take a look at the website for a selection of films we have lined up and are extremely proud of . These are movies that people in Toronto and New York talk about in the coffee shops each night that never make it into local theaters. http://www.windsorfilmfestival.com/. I am certain that you will easily find films that appeal to your particular tastes. We have films that discuss different cultures, Eco-terrorism, Marijuana, relationships etcetera etcetera. This is a perfect festival for a community that boasts that it is one of Canada's most multicultural cities.

The media and the message

I want to send everyone over to Windsor Municipal Shadow to read something that should be of interest to everyone in the city.

"Silencing dissent
A word to the wise to all the Editors at the Windsor Star, City Hall and anywhere else that someone might be inclined to alter what's been posted on the Internet..."

As someone who has been following the University's site selection very closely, I was interested in finding out what our resident automotive journalist had to say about the topic in his U of W Engineering Bldg Won't Fit Downtown Site blog entry. But lo and behold - it dissappeared from the Windsor Star's blog pages.

Now, thanks to the Shadow's advanced google-foo, we have access to the blog entry the Windsor Star appears to have tried to suppress.

Welcome to the Urban Design Idea Factory

Inspired ideas and progressive thinking. These are the ideals that we like to shine a light on around here. They really don't get enough attention these days. Imagine the community we would live in if they did.

I know that I am at my creative best when I'm surrounded by people who thrive on creativity and are not afraid to put their ideas out there on the chopping block of public scrutiny. The scariest thing in the world is to expose your thoughts and ideas to comment and ridicule. It is by far easier when you're amongst others who take those chances right along side of you. That's what SDW wants to be - your safe-haven for creative urban design comradery.

One of our regular readers, AC, sent me his thoughts and ideas regarding the abandoned Transit Windsor depot and has agreed to let me publish his plans here. I think he is on the right path when advocating for facilities for local artists and a permanent downtown farmer's market. Let's hear what you think. (Thanks to Andrew at International Metropolis for the original photo AC used in his work)

Click on the above image for a larger photo of AC's plans for the depot.

- repaved lot to house outdoor market (including underneath overhang) to house fresh fruit & veggie vendors, fresh flowers, apparel, food vendors, etc.
-green upper roofs
-small outdoor restaurant on top of overhang, make it so that the fruits and veggies are fresh and only from the vendors in the market below
-overhanging lights between the tunnel ventilation building and the bus depot
-the rear of the building (west side) can be left vacant and used for loading and unloading.
-trees and benches line the "inner" walkway

It could really be a boost for that area of downtown and even give a link between the casino and the main strip. After admitting that the tunnel stacks concentrate the pollution in that area, they possibly couldn't turn down a green roof either.

So, get thinking of ways to improve this community yourself and send them in. We citizens can be the default planners for this community until our politicians find the testicular fortitude to start planning for a creative future.

Ross Paul is wrong

I thought that it was very nice of The Windsor Star editorial board to give Dr. Ross Paul nearly a third of a page in this Saturday's Star. Paul, without even a hint of disguise, makes his pitch for a suburban campus for both the new school of Engineering and the medical campus.

Paul makes a profound blunder when he states "Within the City of Windsor, where we build is less important to all concerned than how we build." (Those are his italics, not mine!) If this is the new mantra of the University of Windsor, then shame on them for their poor corporate and academic citizenship. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that the location of the largest academic institution in Windsor, and, if all goes according to plan, the most technologically advanced piece of architecture built in my short lifetime, can be mitigated by adding more technological bling. Where does Paul get off in marginalizing those of us who have been advocating for a downtown campus at the U of W? Many people do not realize that the city had a magnificent plan for an urban village (whether a new village or recreation of what was already torn down is for another day) and the administration, who only rarely get kudos on this blog, was willing to set aside years of planning to have the University anchor its' core. For Paul to say that location is less important shows his complete ignorance in urban planning, city development and manufactured social structures. Even my real estate agent tells me that it is location, location, location.

Rest assured, we're going to oppose the U of W at every turn as it continues its' campaign to "prove" to Windsor that it does not need a downtown campus. In reality, a couple of million dollars invested now will return gains to the city like we've never seen before. To the city administration I say, what's a couple of million for a University when we wasted $65 million on an arena? Open up the city cophers and get this University built downtown. The increase in property values (read: increased property taxes) will more than offset the cost of funding the shortfalls in the building budget.

Look for more on this topic as we continue to fight for a real change in Windsor. If you are a U of W alumni, student, etc., please make your opposition to the plan to build outside of the city core known to the administration.

Kudos to Mark Boscariol

Kudos to Mark Boscariol, one of the contributors at SDW, for his guest column on page A6 of the Windsor Star today. Although Mark was talking about the Windsor International Film Festival, he managed to sneak in a dig at the city for its' lack of regionalism (way to go Mark!), and an uncontested statement of logic regarding the requirement for a creative class in Windsor. (Again, way to go Mark.)

For those of you who missed this, click on the picture to the left to be taken to Mark's article.

Hear ye, hear ye...

A couple of upcoming events in and around Windsor dealing with environmental and social issues. Please note, these are not organized by SDW and, as such, we cannot guarantee that the message of SDW will be supported by these events. However, we do feel that free and open discussions, particularly where opposition and contention has existed in the past, is a great start to building change.

The CAW Windsor Regional Environment Council and the Canadian Detroit RiverKeeper have partnered with the Amadiyya Muslim Students Association to host Saving the Environment- What Faith Tells Us. This Interfaith symposium will feature speakers from Muslim, Christian, Hindu and the Jewish faiths. It is being held at the University of Windsor, Vanier Hall at 6 PM on Thursday, November 8th. Please join us to hear a faith-based perspective on the challenges facing humankind and our planet.

Also from the Canadian Detroit RiverKeepers...

Robert Kennedy Jr. will be speaking at Wayne State University November 2nd from 6-8pm. The RiverKeepers have organized a bus which, as of this email, has about 20 open seats. If you would like to get on-board please contact Kelly St. Pierre by clicking on her name.

The speaking event is free and open (I'm not 100% sure about the bus). If you want to go and hear Robert Kennedy Jr speak, you must pre-register at focis.wayne.edu

The final list is in...

Well, this final delegate list is up on the city's website, and with all the lawyers on the list it looks as though it's going to be a long evening.

Josh and I will be speaking to both PAC 1 and PAC 2, since they are items dealing with essentially the same thing - Big Box stores eating away at our local economy.

Be sure to call your councillor and let them know what you think of these items, and watch Monday evening. We're going to make sure that each and every councillor (who are listening, anyways) know the economic ramifications of allowing develoment like this to occur.

PAC 2 Smart Centres (Wal-Mart), rezoning, 7100 Tecumseh Road East, increase size of the Wal-Mart store

-Hugh Handy, Planner, GSP Group (Kitchener)

-Chris Holt, Ward 3 resident and Joshua Biggley, Ward 1 resident

PAC 1 1223244 Ontario Limited, rezoning, northwest corner of Sprucewood Avenue and Matchette Road, commercial development consisting of big box format commercial uses

-Anna Lynn Meloche, LaSalle resident

-Brian McNamara, LaSalle resident

-Ken Cleroux, Ward 1 resident

-Chris Holt, Ward 3 resident and Joshua Biggley, Ward 1 resident

-Rob Spring, Vice Chair of Environmental Planning Advisory Committee
-Arnie Blaine, Ottawa Street BIA and member of Windsor Business Improvement Association Advisory Committee

-Paul Mullins, Solicitor, representing Windsor Raceway

-Jeffrey Slopen, Solicitor representing the applicant; Karl Tanner and Shawn Doyle, Dillon Consulting Limited; John Winter, John Winter Associates Ltd.; and Greg Daly, Planner, Walker Nott Dragicevic Associates Ltd.

Daydreaming a little for the weekend

I thought SDW's readers might like to daydream a little with me and read about the possibilities a community can achieve through a little vision and collective action. Then, it dawned on me that this article was written by the same Chris Turner, author of Geography Of Hope, that was spotlighted here on SDW a few days ago.

Coincidence? I think not...

So, sit back, read the article, and imagine the future we could achieve if we had some equally visionary pioneers here in Windsor.

Beyond buzzwords in Banff.

Going green is often corporate-speak for one-off tree-planting campaigns or buildings with energy-efficient light bulbs. But sustainability can be a guiding philosophy as radical and transformative as democracy was to the last century - and one developer in the Rocky Mountains is putting that thinking into action

By CHRIS TURNER

Saturday, October 20, 2007

BANFF, ALTA. -- The Old Crag Cabin has stood in downtown Banff for pretty much as long as there has been a town. It went up in 1890, not long after the first railway track was laid through the Bow Valley - a simple, elegant structure on Bear Street, built in the same corner-post log style as the Hudson's Bay Company trading posts.

At some point in the 1970s, however, the building that once gave a roof to the town newspaper that remains its namesake was encased in yellowish wood panelling and passersby would be forgiven for failing to notice it at all. Bear Street had become a dowdy retail strip - a couple of blocks of everyday services running parallel to glitzy Banff Avenue, but as distant in function as the laundry room from the presidential suite at the Banff Springs hotel. The Crag Cabin, a victim of a quick-buck tourist town's sloppy modernization, wore the street's neglect like a cheap, out-of-date suit.

But the cabin's fate began a dramatic reversal when a local property developer called Arctos & Bird bought it and a handful of surrounding properties in the late 1990s. Its principal, Peter Poole, not only planned to preserve the old cabin according to restrictive covenants on the land, he saw it as the centrepiece of a much broader renewal - an effort to bring truly sustainable development to a mountain town that had grown so rich on its natural beauty that it was on the verge of forgetting that a pretty view was not the same as a healthy ecosystem.

Sustainability is too often used as a buzzword, a bit of corporate-speak to describe the cosmetic tree-planting campaigns of relentless fossil-fuel burners. But Mr. Poole and his team embraced the deeper meaning of the word: Their redevelopment of the Crag Cabin property - which came to be known as Bison Courtyard - demonstrates the concept's full import as a baseline organizing principle.

They understand that sustainability is as vital as the clean air we breathe, and it has the power to be as disruptive to this century as democracy was to the one just past. When it is done right, sustainability lays the foundations for the institutions a healthy society needs and the way of life to which free people aspire. And it can begin from something as humble as democracy's huddled masses - a tired old relic of a cabin, for example.

CRADLE TO CRADLE

The Old Crag Cabin was built in a "pavilion" style - with all four sides designed to be exposed - so Mr. Poole wanted it to stand as the circumnavigable core of a courtyard showcasing the national park's exquisite natural environment. He also wanted to bring the cultural riches of the Banff Centre downtown and supply the town with a bakery. In short, he wanted something far more than a basic commercial strip.

He began by commissioning designer William McDonough, one of the world's most influential green architects. His other work includes landmark corporate headquarters for Ford, the Gap and Google - and he brought to Banff a sort of condensed version of his hyper-efficient, waste-free design philosophy.

Intended as a pointed riposte to sustainability's more modest ambitions, Mr. McDonough calls his approach "cradle to cradle." His buildings don't just aim to reduce occupants' ecological impact to zero, they also regenerate their environment; he believes human enterprise can be not only sustainable, but also restorative. And this vision has made Bison Courtyard more than a mere preservation project.

An elegant, $10-million multi-use complex, it forms a horseshoe of blond wood, local limestone and triple-paned glass around Crag Cabin, with notches carefully inserted in its roofline to provide postcard views of the area's most prominent peaks. The courtyard also has a large garden of native plants fed by rainwater (which also flushes the building's toilets) and indigenous greenery on flat sections of the roof that both improve insulation and create a sanctuary for the valley's natural habitat. The Arctos & Bird team celebrated the first owl droppings found amid those plants the way another firm might have toasted the signing of a flagship tenant.
"If you have the privilege of paving over part of the park," says operations director John Harrop, "you should bring the park back in."

All told, 92 per cent of the building materials cleared to make way for Bison Courtyard were diverted from landfill, including a significant portion repurposed on-site. This includes one of the two namesake 6,000-year-old bison skulls found during the excavation of the underground parking lot, which greets visitors from a display case in the lobby (the other now resides in Banff's Buffalo Nations Luxton Museum). The complex's energy demand is about 70 per cent less than a conventional building Arctos & Bird manages elsewhere in town.

This, though, is increasingly standard-issue stuff in the green building game, and efficiency, by itself, doesn't demonstrate the full scope of sustainability's promise. What is truly remarkable about Bison Courtyard is its attention to the social side of the equation - its encouragement of countless interactions and collaborations that create not just an impressive structure but a vibrant place. "The multiplier effect," Mr. Harrop calls it, and one way it was created at Bison Courtyard was, ironically, by subtraction.

THEORY IN ACTION

The subtraction in question was applied to the prime restaurant space on the complex's second floor, overlooking Bear Street, which includes a patio with quite possibly the best panoramic view in a town overloaded with world-class vistas.

As part of the design process, the Arctos team researched the average minimum floor space preferred by big-chain restaurants - and then shrunk their space to a size a few hundred square feet smaller. The usual suspects (including a chain of steakhouses owned by media magnate Ted Turner) salivated at the location, but none could find a way to fit into Bison Courtyard.
"We had a lot of chains hanging around our door," Mr. Poole says. "And they would sniff once, twice. Only the boutique restaurateurs would sniff a third time."

Before long, the husband-and-wife team of Ryan Rivard and Camilla Sherret, former purveyors of top-drawer cheeses in Calgary, came calling with a profile that fit perfectly with Mr. Poole's vision. "He had people waving millions of dollars in his face," Mr. Rivard says, still amazed at his luck. "And he said, 'No, I want mom and pop.' "

Mr. Rivard and Ms. Sherret's initial plan was for an unpretentious downtown boîte where visitors could sample regional produce - "Rocky Mountain comfort food," they called it. Soon, however, sustainability's multiplier effect kicked in, set in motion by a gift from Mr. Poole: Mr. McDonough's green design manifesto Cradle to Cradle.

By the time it opened, Bison Mountain Bistro had tables of reclaimed wood and a pressed-tin bar salvaged from the scrap heap. The general store next to the entrance was stocked with sauces and preserves from the restaurant's own kitchen, alongside artisanal cheeses and cold-pressed organic canola oil.

The kitchen, meanwhile, became a radical, ongoing experiment in gourmet waste reduction. One day not long after the bistro opened, a Saskatchewan bison farmer finished his bison burger with a query for the kitchen: Why waste your money on a few patties or a rib eye or two when you can buy whole animals and save a bundle? The bistro soon became the farmer's biggest customer and now turns out bison onion soup, bison-tail stew and vacuum-packed bison jerky. The chef has also gone literally whole hog - ordering in entire pigs and curing his own prosciutto. What began as a somewhat aesthetic conceit ("Rocky Mountain comfort food") has become a model of efficient regional cuisine.

The rest of the Courtyard's tenants have engaged in similar experiments. The hair salon organizes monthly art shows. The video store donates its late fees to charity. And Wild Flour is not only the first real bakery that Banff has seen in more than a decade, but owner Jenna Dashney has also made it the first to dedicate itself to organic baking. Arctos rewards such efforts with a $2-per-square-foot rebate on rents.

Meanwhile, in the summer and fall, the outdoor courtyard plays host to a small organic produce market and recitals courtesy of the Banff Centre. Bison Mountain Bistro runs pizza nights using an oven specially installed in one wall for just such events.

"I never leave the courtyard," says Ms. Dashney, who rents one of the 10 apartments built into the complex. "If we had a wine shop here, we'd be perfect."

The Courtyard's tenants - several of whom live on-site - cross-pollinate in less tangible ways as well. "It's a very community-minded group of people," says Mr. Rivard, who has been taking advice from Ms. Dashney on how to deepen the green of his restaurant. "My neighbour does give a shit if I use recycled spoons."

It's an incidental detail, to be sure, but the kind that seems to have a way of sorting itself out when the whole project - whether a building in backstreet Banff or a whole civilization - is established on sustainable foundations.

Born of an initially modest effort to restore one of the town's oldest cabins, Bison Courtyard has emerged as possibly the greenest building in the Canadian Rockies, a new civic square for a town sorely lacking such spaces and a magnet for an inspired clique of enlightened merchants who just might change the retail face of Banff.

Calgary journalist Chris Turner is the author of The Geography of Hope, in stores today. His feature appears monthly in Focus.

cturner@globeandmail.com

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 9

Myth Number 9
We have to "grow or die." Growth makes the economy strong and creates better paying jobs.

Reality Check: The short-term benefits of additional growth may not outweigh the longer-term costs.

According to ecological economist Herman Daly, "There is evidence that in the United States growth now makes us poorer by increasing costs faster than it increases benefits. In other words, we appear to have grown beyond the optimal scale."

Daly and others have shown that the growing U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) does not reflect the true economic welfare of the public. While GDP has grown steadily, better measures of economic welfare that consider social and ecological costs, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) show a declining level of prosperity over the past 20 years.

While acknowledging the political difficulty in limiting growth, Daly has argued convincingly that we must move towards a stable or "steady-state" economy. While a stable economy can continue to develop in a qualitative sense, quantitative growth in material consumption and waste production cannot continue indefinitely.

The idea that economies must grow seems to be rooted in a classical economics originating more than 200 years ago. These early economists believed that population growth was inevitable (there was no safe and effective birth control devices at the time). Thus, they believed economies must grow to meet the needs of expanding populations. However, in recent times, many European countries have shown that they can have strong, prosperous economies with little or no population growth.

The bias toward continued growth in grow economic output is apparent in the professional terminology. A non-growing economy is referred to as "stagnant" or even "recessionary", rather than the more accurate and neutral term, stable. The former terms imply rot, decay, and decline, while the later implies balance and equilibrium.

North American society has very little experience with economics that are intentionally stable or non-growing in terms of consumption and pollution emission. The business of crafting a sustainable economy that does not place increasing burdens on the natural environment will be a challenge for the future

Fear of Dying in Eugene, Oregon

In 1995, various members of Eugene's business community were trying to promote a proposal for a new convention center that would cost at least $25 million and require ongoing public subsidies. The vice-president of marketing for the Hilton Hotel (the largest local hotel) was quoted in the newspapers as saying "We have to grow or die." The statement went unchallenged by the reporter in spite of the fact that the hotel had been profitable for the past 20 years without any growth.

for a printable version of the argument against Myth 9, citing references, click here

Just humouring us. Francis and Paul not really different

Big surprise in todays Windsor Star.

How does anyone expect the citizens of this city to care about our community when the institutions of higher education (scratch that - education, period) have all but given up?

Since it's painfully obvious to us that the Board of Governors never intended the new campus to be downtown, and now it seems that Francis is moving on (no offense to St. Clair College, who actually follows through with their plans) to another post-secondary institution - the real question just begs to be asked...

What has happened to the idea of the Urban Village planned since 2002? Just like the multi-modal hub idea espoused in the original Schwartz plan, the Urban Village seems to have died a quiet death somewhere in the halls of power. Why are we insisting upon following the public/private educational model when we have already invested a large sum of money in an excellent mixed-use revitalization framework already?

Maybe Francis was just humouring us as well.

Engineering building doubtful for city core
Mayor 'doesn't expect it,' enters talks with college for expanded campus

Fed up with its inability to get straight answers from the University of Windsor on proposals for a downtown campus, the city has moved on to talks with St. Clair College that could bring hundreds of additional students downtown while creating a new family oriented attraction.
Possible museum

St. Clair College president John Strasser and Mayor Eddie Francis have been kicking around ideas for a second downtown facility, potentially with museum and hall of fame components, that would enable the college to build on its success in transforming the money-losing Cleary into the St. Clair Centre for the Arts with close to 500 students and instructors.

Francis had been hoping for a blockbuster campus cluster involving the university as well as the college, which could have brought at least 2,000 additional students into the core.
But his hopes have been dashed by what he reads as a thumbs down from a cash-strapped university.

Francis, who sounded exasperated, said it's clear from conversations with university officials that their new pride and joy, the $110-million Centre for Engineering Innovation, won't be located downtown.

University president Ross Paul said Tuesday at a board of governors meeting that a decision on a site for the sprawling structure will be made in the next six weeks. "Your patience won't be tested for too much longer," he commented.

For Francis, it's beyond testing. "My sense is that the engineering campus is not going downtown. I don't expect it, based on the conversations I've had." That stings, given that Francis played a key role in persuading the university to chase a more ambitious project than initially planned and was a member of the team that successfully pitched the proposal to the province.

What really rankles is that the university dangled attractive consolation prizes for the downtown, including a law school and school of social work, under the city's nose and then yanked them away.

"We were given false hope that this was do-able, and then, after checking the numbers, we were told it was not do-able because their financial numbers didn't add up," said Francis. Excited by the possibilities, he had city planners do preliminary work which confirmed a dream campus would fit on city-owned land south of the art gallery. He also contacted area museum and heritage backers who showed interest in relocating. And then came the letdown.

A couple of weeks ago a university delegation offered Francis a mea culpa, explaining that they had goofed in mentioning other downtown campus candidates, because the money simply isn't available. "They told me I had every right to be angry and frustrated," said Francis. "They said they were sorry, that they should have done the number crunching first."

The mayor insisted he's not bitter, just disappointed an opportunity has been missed to boost the university's image and create a better student experience by integrating it into a redeveloped downtown. "You only build something like this once every 75 or 80 years. This is a huge missed opportunity."

Board of governors chairman Marty Komsa wasn't available for comment but Dave Cooke, who'll take over in December, said the board is trying to make the right decision for the university and the community with limited financial resources.

"We're trying to do the best we can but we're not the University of Toronto," said Cooke, explaining that just the interest on U of T's fundraising drives exceeds what the U of W can raise over two years.

"We want to do as much as we can with the city. But let's not do the Windsor thing and focus only on the negative," said Cooke. He said the engineering and medical schools, regardless of location, are massive achievements that would have been inconceivable a few years ago.

But the city, which might have contributed $10 million or more in cash and land toward a downtown engineering campus, will be far less likely to crank open its wallet for a site with fewer spinoffs.

And so the focus switches to the college, with its track record of working with the city.

"There's nothing concrete at this time. We're just at the exploratory stages of stuff that might work," said Strasser. He said theatre arts, interior design, health sciences and business information technology would be among candidates for a move downtown in the event of a deal.

"I have a lot of faith in the mayor and I'm sure he'll come up with another idea to have a coffee at Tim's and move the idea forward," said Strasser

The city described their initial plans for the lands as "Building on its history, international riverfront and varied cultural attractions, City Centre West is a pedestrian-oriented urban village where people meet, live, work, shop and play."

Does this mean these values are no longer a priority to this administration?

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 8

Myth Number 8
Most don’t really support growth management or environmental protection.

Reality Check: A majority of the public does recognize the importance of environmental protection and the need to manage growth.

Surveys consistently show a broad awareness of environmental issues and a concern about continued growth. A statewide survey of 1,361 Oregonians conducted in 1993 found 75 percent of respondents believe maintaining a quality environment is more important to economic growth than relaxing environmental regulations. Furthermore, 64 percent felt that “environmental protection will become more important than economic growth.”

Nationwide, 70 percent of respondents to a May 1995 ABC/Washington Post poll thought the federal government had not gone far enough to protect the environment. Money magazine found that its readers rated clean air and water above all other factors (even a low crime rate) in deciding where to live, according to its September 1995 survey.

Despite growth often being portrayed as a divisive issue with two opposed “camps,” it really should not be. In areas that have experienced rapid growth, public opinion surveys consistently show that a strong majority of the public will support policies to curb growth. A 1988 survey of Los Angeles residents found that 75 percent favoured slowing or stopping growth (59 percent slowing, 16 percent stopping).

A 1995 statewide survey in Colorado asked: “In general, what do you consider to be the one most important issue facing Colorado today?”. Respondents were not prompted to give any particular answer. “Too much growth” was the most common response, and was given more than twice as frequently as the next most common reply. The following are the top four of 15 categories of responses:

Growth, too much/too fast 34%

Crime/Drugs/Alcohol 16%

Economic problems 6%

Another question in this survey asked “How do you feel about the overall rate of population growth in the state of Colorado? Would you say that in the past two or three years the population of the state has grown too fast, at about the right rate, or would you say that Colorado is not growing fast enough?” The responses were:

Too fast 73%

About right 24%

Not fast enough 1%

Don’t know 2%

For a printable copy of the argument against Myth 8, citing references, click here

U of W engineering site already chosen?

An interesting story in todays Windsor Star. Following weeks of speculation and anticipation (it was widely anticipated that the location of the University's new Engineering Campus would be made immediately following the Oct 10 provincial elections) the Windsor Star prints this...

Engineering centre site to be chosen in 6 weeks

Monica Wolfson
Windsor Star
Wednesday, October 24, 2007

University of Windsor officials are expected to announce a location for the Centre for Engineering Innovation within the next six weeks. "Your patience won't be tested for too much longer," president Ross Paul said Tuesday at a board of governors meeting. University officials have two key meetings with architects on Oct. 29 and Nov. 12.

An announcement on where the building -- or two buildings -- will be constructed should follow those consultations. "We have huge pressures to get this done," said Paul, who declined to be more specific about a timeline for an announcement.

It's unlikely the university will build a tower because Paul said they're more expensive. "A low facility takes up more room, but it's cheaper to build," Paul said. The building will contain classrooms, research areas and manufacturing courtyards, which Paul said can be "warehouse"-like wings. The $110-million project can be one large facility or two smaller buildings integrating teaching, research and manufacturing courtyards at each location. Paul said university officials need a "clearer concept" of the facility to attract partners and launch fundraising efforts.

$20 MILLION NEEDED

The university needs $20 million in additional funding to pay for the project, because it has been promised $40 million from the province and has issued $50 million in debentures. Board member Matthew Moroun, who is vice-chairman of Centra Inc., asked if the construction contractor would be signing a guaranteed price contract and who would be in charge of change orders. "The project will stay within budget," Paul said, after making a presentation about how teams of school administrators would manage the project. The board would ultimately approve large expenditures, but the project will be managed day-to-day by a steering committee of board members, senior university executives and a yet-to-be-hired program manager. "Change orders will go through the steering committee," said Neil Gold, provost, who will head up the steering committee. "(Engineering Dean) Graham Reader and the executive group will deal with those issues as they arise." Paul said the university has a reputation for building projects within budget. The new medical school was originally supposed to cost $20 million, but had a price tag of $24 million when the shovels went into the ground last spring. Paul said the additional costs aren't part of the medical school. The money will go to add a third floor onto the medical building for research space.

© The Windsor Star 2007

Reading between the lines of this article clearly points the reader to believe that University of Windsor president Ross Paul has already made up his mind to move out to the suburbs with the new campus. He appears to be doing a little pre-emptive justifying by saying vague statements like "It's unlikely the university will build a tower", and "A low facility takes up more room, but it's cheaper to build"

The province needs to put stipulations on their $40 million grant, in the spirit of their belief in "Smart Growth", and force the University to build downtown. This is taxpayer money they're doling out, and while I believe that spending on education is clearly one of the best uses for our money, I don't believe that it should be spent encouraging suburban sprawl.

This choice seems to be tilted towards accomodating the Universty's out-of-pocket expenses, not taking into consideration the costs being downloaded onto the municipality to take care of infrastructure costs. Total cost economics must come into play when discussing huge expenditures of public money. This is not even taking into consideration the incredible life-line a downtown campus would provide to our floundering core.

I believe a letter to Sandra and Dwight is in order...

CocoBox before Council this Monday...

As everyone who's been reading SDW knows, we have an elevated level of interest in all things "Sprawl". You have been reading about our regular updates and recommendations on Jenny Coco's big-box proposal on the far-west end, right in the midst of the Ojibway complex, and the impacts it will have on our community. Well, it has made it past the Planning Advisory Committee with endorsements from WECEC and ERCA, and now it is going before City Council. The request is for the zoning change that will enable it to build its 420,000 square feet of monotony and 2,300 parking spaces for minivans and SUVs. Here's the notice as well as supporting documents;

PAC 1 1223244 Ontario Limited, rezoning, northwest corner of Sprucewood Avenue and Matchette Road, commercial development consisting of big box format commercial uses (PAC Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, Appendix D, Appendix E, Appendix F, Appendix G1, Appendix G2, Appendix H, Appendix I) (Administration Report) (Administration Appendix) (Additional Information) (Town of LaSalle Comments)

Also of equal and stunningly similar importance is the second PAC item...

PAC 2 Smart Centres (Wal-Mart), rezoning, 7100 Tecumseh Road East, increase size of the Wal-Mart store

Both of these items pose a huge threat to Windsor's quality of life and local economic development. We urge you to learn as much as you can about the proposals and contact your councillors to voice your concerns.

From the desk of the General Manager of Public Works comes this little gem - also going before council this Monday night...

Item 1 City-wide Brownfield Redevelopment Strategy and Community Improvement Plan Consultant Selection

Read up on this one, because it contains some long-term ramifications. We'll delve a little deeper later on this later in the week.

Canadians fatter -- and we know why

According to an article posted on Canada.com today, Canadians have the highest percentage of obese adults of 63 nations investigated. Here's a link to the article. I wonder if anyone has stopped to ask why?

SDW has been asking why -- and providing real solutions for the issues impacting Canadians, and Windsorites, alike. Check out this recent post.

Geography of Hope

The message that we share at SDW is that we can make a difference. Often, it is a message that is lost in the cacophony of fear that mass media spreads. Imagine my surprise when I caught a news story on CTV about a new book by author Chris Turner called The Geography of Hope. Turner wrote the book after the birth of his daughter. The message? The changes that we keep saying should be made, but never quite find the time to do, advocate for or invest in are already happening.

Turner travelled the world to document that successes that individuals, communities, cities and countries have had in building the communities of tomorrow today! Check out the link above to buy his book or this link to his webpage. I think it will give you the hope we are all looking for to continue to fight for the change we want to see.

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 7

Myth Number 7
If you don't like growth, you're a "NIMBY" or an "Anti".

Reality Check: NIMBYs have valid concerns.

The overused NIMBY acronym, "not in my backyard," is supposed to reflect a selfish attitude, an unwillingness to accept some undesirable development in, or near, the neighbourhood. Similar rhetorical labels include "anti's" (people who are against everything), "gatekeepers", "drawbridge raisers", or "I've got mine." There are far too many examples of how these negative labels have been used against concerned citizens to neutralize opposition to growth.

These labels seem to have the primary purpose of invalidating what may be a very legitimate concern about growth and development. A NIMBY is more likely to be someone who cares enough about the future of his or her community to get out and protect it. You can thank all the great NIMBYs of the past for keeping hazardous wastes dumps, major polluters, and other nuisances out of your community. The more people join together to preserve the quality of their "backyards", the better off the world will be.

People who move to a community and then express concerns about growth are sometimes referred to as “pulling up the drawbridge after them”. Again, this is like to be a distortion of the person’s real motives. Often, newcomers to a community move there because they recognize it has some special qualities. They may also have lived in other towns where they’ve watched similar qualities be destroyed by growth. Thus, they may have a keen awareness of how vulnerable their new community’s assets are. This outside experience can be valuable to a community that has not recently experienced the consequences of rapid growth.

People who want slow growth tend to be those who care very much about the future of their community and want to protect what they value for generations to come. They are usually volunteers who are willing to contribute their time generously in a charitable civic capacity to improve the community and the environment. Is it more accurate for the local newspaper to refer to such a person as anti-growth or as pro-community? Negative labeling distorts and marginalizes legitimate viewpoints. It also tends to polarize issues and discourage productive dialogue. Are you an anti-growther or a dedicated civic volunteer concerned about the future of your community?

read more of the argument against Myth 7 here

Creating an Alt. Trans. Mental Picture

We have so little in the ways of examples of truly progressive municipal thought processes locally that it is difficult to picture what a lot of the global experts are talking about when it comes to thinking generationally about transportation planning. It is hard for the everyday Joe/Anne on the street to envision any alternatives, when we are constantly surrounded by an asphalt-loving road-widening mentality. This is precisely the reason we occasionally must look to other countries on far-flung continents to help us build our alternative-transportation mental picture.

Which is why I'm leading you across the pond to Bodø. The city of Bodø in the County of Nordland in northern Norway wants to become a bicycle city. NPRA and the municipality of Bodø have suggested building in a foot and bicycle path between the College of Higher Education and the city centre to make cycling easier and more attractive. Some years ago a glass roof was constructed over a part of the main street and the experience with the project was so positive, now the inhabitants of Bodø gladly look forward to the tube being built. The idea, which was introduced by the City Plan Director, Jørn Roar Moe, is to construct a framed structure covered with transparent plastic plates. The bicycle tube will have a number of roofed openings for access and ventilation. There will also be internal illumination. The tube will hold physically separated roads for cyclists and pedestrians.

Some people take the idea of traffic abatement seriously. I just wish we didn't need to look to other countries to find examples such as this. Want an idea of what they're thinking of? Click here.

How about a little closer to home? Bill, a reader here in Windsor, sent along this link he found to The Indianapolis Cultural Trail. It turns out that Indianapolis, Indiana is making what could be the boldest step of any North American city towards supporting bicyclists and pedestrians. Known as an extremely auto-oriented city, most closely associated with the Indianapolis 500, this is one of the last cities we would have expected to see systematically removing vehicle lanes and replacing them with bicycle and pedestrian space.

Now, tell me why we have such a difficult time implementing even the slightest change here in Windsor?

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 6

Myth Number 6
Growth is inevitable. Growth management doesn't work and therefore we have no choice but to continue growing. You can't put a fence around our town.

Reality Check: You can establish limits to growth and you can create a "railing" around your community.

Because it is impractical and also illegal to build a physical barrier to the movement of people and goods within the country, growth advocates suggest that there is nothing productive you can do to keep your community at the size you like.

The statement that "growth is inevitable" implies that we are helpless victims of change, that we must accept whatever growth is thrust upon us, and that our only choice is the manner in which we accommodate it.

It is true that our communities cannot erect tall fences, build insurmountable walls, or use drawbridges over alligator-filled moats to keep people out. There is a constitutional right to travel that prevents communities from erecting these kinds of rigid barriers. But that doesn't mean there is nothing we can do to rein in growth. We can use a wide range of responsible policies and regulations to influence whether or not people and businesses choose to locate in our community. We can also set limits to the rate of growth and even cap the ultimate size of our community.

One option is to adopt policies that will discourage undesirable kinds of growth. By enacting specific standards, a community can create what might be termed a "railing." This railing, unlike the proverbial fence, might be composed of environmental, social, and economic standards that will direct growth and change in the community without blocking it entirely.

Dozens of communities have established limits to their rate of growth and to their ultimate size to protect the local quality of life and to respect the physical limitations of their natural environment. These growth limits have yet to be thoroughly tested in the courts. But the ability to establish limits seems like a reasonable, if not essential, tool for community governance. The idea of unlimited, or forced, growth is repulsive. It implies a horrible sickness, like a cancer.

Some growth limits will cap the ultimate population size of a community. This must be done in a manner that does not prevent people from coming and going. While the size of the population may be stabilized, the composition can remain dynamic within the bounds set by the community. As long as new births and in-migration do not exceed deaths and out-migration, the community does not grow.

As more and more communities realize they want to preserve their small town character, the ideas of establishing limits to growth will become more commonplace. As some communities reach the limits they have set for themselves and stop growing, the courts – and society – will make decisions about how this transition to a stable community may properly occur

click here for a printable copy of the argument against Myth 6

Reminded of the one...

I just want to say thank you to The Windsor Star for reminding me that we have one member of city council who isn't afraid to speak up and tell people the way it is.

Alan Halberstadt wrote a letter to the editor today calling for people to realize that the first order of business is to REDUCE the number of trucks on the roads - not just accomodate them (which, in the end, only encourages that method of transportation)

Route fixation keeping focus from border fix

I sympathize with the opinion of occupational health activist James Brophy, Oct. 12, that the City of Windsor's plan to spend $1.6 billion on a road solution to bury border trucks is the wrong approach.

Mr. Brophy is bang on. We should be looking first for ways to reduce the number of trucks crossing the Detroit River. Unfortunately, the city has been backed into a corner by senior governments who have decided more and more trucks will keep rolling through Windsor and somehow we have to accommodate them over the next 50 to 100 years.

The alternative to burying trucks in tunnels is to continue the practice of mixing them with cars and stopping and starting them for six kilometres from the 401 to E.C. Row. The stoplights on Huron Church Road offer the worst-case scenario for creating and spreading poisonous diesel fumes.

Mr. Brophy fails to mention that the original Schwartz plan, unveiled in January 2005, includes other components every bit as vital as the Huron Church access route.

Sam Schwartz advocated the following "balanced transportation" elements to subtract 2,000 trucks per day from city streets:
- Increase the capacity of the Detroit-Windsor truck ferry from 50-80 trucks/day to 1,000.
- Build a CP rail tunnel beneath the Detroit River to support double-stack rail containers that carry SUVs, etc.
- Build a multi-modal hub at Windsor Airport aligning ground, air and rail transportation. Rationalize commercial and passenger rail lines and rail yards to eliminate 15 public railway crossings in Windsor and 94 in Essex and Kent counties.

The city needs to revisit the original Schwartz plan, which envisioned a five-phase construction schedule:
- Phase 1: Huron Church bypass, existing ferry, bridge and tunnel improvements.
- Phase 2: New rail tunnel, rail consolidation, multi-modal facility, new rail station.
- Phase 3: Lauzon Parkway and Manning Road extensions to the 401.
- Phase 4: Highway 401 improvements and extension.
- Phase 5: Build the new crossing.

The timing on some of these green elements has become muddled and even forgotten given the fixation on the truck access route.

The city needs to get cracking on them to alleviate Mr. Brophy's grim warning that the Windsor-Detroit border transportation plan will be unsustainable in 15 years.

ALAN HALBERSTADT
Ward 3 Councillor

The article which Halberstadt is citing, features James Brophy decrying a huge investment on an option that will be deemed obsolete in twenty years, while doing nothing to curb emmissions. Unfortunately, the Star's archive service was down at the time of this writing, so I cannot reprint it here.

We must encourage Alan to keep up the good fight, and being the sole member of council willing to tell the truth - no matter how hard it is to hear.

Halberstadt for Mayor in 2010!

SDW - The latest effort to combat obesity

It seems that, after years of fighting to get the message out, that people in high places are finally starting to listen. Oh yes, and the media has picked up on it too!

According to an article posted on MSN this morning, the British thinktank Foresight has analyzed data involving 250 health experts spanning two years and determined that our environment, that is the infrastructure and amenities that comprise the world we live in, that is contributing to the rise of obesity. The predicted that, even if we acted immediately, it would take 30 years to reverse the trend that is set in place.

"Tackling obesity, like tackling climate change, requires a range of changes in society, from increasing everyday activity through the design of the built environment and transport systems to shifting the drivers of the food chain and consumer purchasing patterns to favor healthier options."

It looks like SDW can chalk up one more reason for fighting the good fight -- the health of future generations will rely on our success in transforming our community and making passive "exercise" a part of every day life rather than the exception to the rule.

Dumbing down at our expense

There is a fear in the halls of political power to broach certain topics with honesty, regardless of expert opinion.

Take the war on drugs. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that prohibition doesn't work and that legalization would lead to regulation, revenue for addiction treatment and law enforcement, and a more honest and open discourse on the topic. Yet the general populace, who are fed only token, filtered information, would not accept this, and the political leaders opt to entertain their votes instead of the hard science. This does our society a disservice.

The same is true of the current debate over our border crossing. Don't get me wrong. This is an immeasurably difficult situation for our community and we should not be bearing the brunt of it alone. We are forced to deal with an issue that culminates with 30,000 transport trucks per day flowing through our neighborhoods.

Yet, the issue that we are dealing with is not the trucks. They are the symptom. The issue our municipality is dividing itself over is the federal issue of our national transportation framework. The Canadian government's choice of highway expansion at the expense of neglecting our rail infrastructure has tilted the playing field towards an ever-increasing number of transport trucks moving our "stuff" down our highways and through our neighborhoods. This is an unsustainable method of trade, yet we continue to pour money into it in the hopes that it will get better. Our disappearing rail network, while infinitely more efficient than the transport trucks, doesn't have the powerful political lobby and is therefore failing in attracting the necessary funding to sustain it.

Even in last night's throne speech from "Canada's New Government", they are perpetuating this misconception;

"Our Government will announce an infrastructure program, the Building Canada Plan, to support our long-term growth. By investing in our transport and trade hubs, including the Windsor–Detroit corridor and the Atlantic and Pacific gateways, our Government will help rebuild our fundamentals for continued growth.

The result will be safer roads and bridges, shorter commutes, more competitive business, improved cultural infrastructure and a better quality of life for all Canadians."

I have no doubt that many pieces of our current transportation system are in dire need of funding, and that we have a responsibility to do so. I am not asking our country to just "Stop Right Now". That would be a disastrous decision to make so abruptly. There have been generations of decisions and expenditures that have brought us to the point we're at right now. What I'm asking is why are we not even addressing what we all know is true and the impacts those realities will have on the transportation choices we are currently embroiled in? We know that oil is getting more scarce and more expensive. We know that our reliance on global trade (read: China) has eroded our manufacturing industry to a mere shell of its former self. We know that the products we are importing are of questionable quality. We know that we cannot afford the immense road network we currently have, so why are we increasing its scope. We know many things, we're not stupid.

We recognise the many, individual problems plaguing our society, and now it's time to start linking them together.

I just want to see our community and country start to admit there's other factors at play in our border crossing dilemma, regardless of the political repercussions. I want to know the full ramifications of the governments major funding announcements prior to spending the windfall on an unsustainable system. The saying goes; When you've dug yourself into a hole, the first order of business is to stop digging and explore your options. Why are we so welcoming of an industry that is so damaging to our overall quality of life - on so many different levels - when there are alternatives.

It's not immediate answers that I'm looking for at this point in time. I'd be happy with some good questions.

I want informed decisions.

Is that too much to ask?

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 5

Myth Number 5
Environmental protection hurts the economy. We must be willing to sacrifice local environmental quality for jobs and economic prosperity.

Reality Check: Environmental protection is good for people and the economy.

A 1993 comparison of environmental standards and economic growth by Bank of America Vice President and Senior Economist Frederick Cannon, found that the economies of states with strong environmental standards had grown nearly one-half of a percent faster per year during the previous 14 years than in states with weak environmental standards.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Stephen Meyer posed the question: Does environmental protection and regulation hinder economic growth, job creation, and overall production, as some business groups maintain? He evaluated and ranked the 50 states based on two sets of criteria: economic prosperity (gross domestic product, total employment, and productivity); and breadth and depth of environmental programs. Meyers found that:

· states with stronger environmental policies consistently out-performed the weaker environmental states on all economic measures;

· the pursuit of environmental quality does not hinder economic growth and development;

· there appears to be a moderate, yet consistent, positive association between environmentalism and economic growth, and

· there is no evidence that relaxing environmental standards well produce economic growth.

read the rest of the argument against Myth 5 here.

Investing in Olde Walkerville

I find it inspiring when people are courageous enough to start a business, let alone when they decide to start it in economically depressing times. Luckily for Walkerville residents, there are still people who believe enough in our little corner of the city to invest their hard earned dollars and make a go of it.

Two developments are happening at the corner of Wyandotte and Chilver. In the old Bank of Montreal building, formerly occupied by T'Dye For Hair Spa, extensive renovations are underway for The Gourmet Emporium. I was invited into the building last week to see for myself, and let me tell you, BJ, the owner, is sparing no expense. I am looking forward to their Grand Opening scheduled for early November.

Across from The Gourmet Emporium on Chilver is the mystery development happening in the old Complex nightclub. I don't know exactly what is proposed for this building - but you know they are serious when Rosati is hired as the developer. Is seems as though the entire complex is being gutted. Keep an eye out for something here.

Over at the seemingly ever-under-construction Club Lofts, the windows are finally going in!

I attended their open house at Willistead Manor what seems like years ago, and the renderings I saw for these suites made me want to sign up on the spot. I do hope that the real estate market picks up in time so that the adaptive reuse of underutilized buildings such as Hiram Walker's warehouse becomes economically viable. These kinds of development really infuse life into a community that's experiencing rough times.

And then over on Walker Road, the old Hydro Sub-Station that was snapped up during Enwin's sell-off of unnecessary properties is seeing some life happening within it's walls. I was told that an architect had purchased the property, but when I was there, there was a host of cameras, lights and models strolling around the building and the grounds. The building has been beautifully restored - the windows are amazing - and work is obviously continuing.

So keep at it, Windsor. there's still a lot of life left in you!

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 4

Myth Number 4
If we try to limit growth, housing prices will shoot up.

Reality Check: Growth controls can produce many benefits for a community and may even result in a better distribution of affordable housing than market-driven growth.

Housing affordability has the potential to become a key issue in any local debate about how to control growth. The development industry has repeatedly used the housing affordability issue to defeat growth controls on the grounds that anything that restricts the supply of housing, or pushes up the cost, will affect housing affordability.

Concerns about how growth controls affect the availability of low and moderate-income housing are legitimate. But such concerns should not be used merely to thwart and undermine growth controls. Rather, these concerns should serve as the motivation to create responsible policies that truly address the community's housing needs.

A 1992 study compared housing prices of seven California cities having growth controls with comparable cities not having growth controls. This study compared each community's home prices every year from 1980 to 1987 and found that "median single-family home prices did not rise any faster or to higher levels in the seven case-study cities than in their counterpart pro-growth cities. Indeed, by the end of the 1980's, housing was more affordable in some of the growth control cities than in their corresponding comparison cities."

read the rest of the argument against Myth 4 here.