CocoBox Update

Since the PAC meeting last week, SDW has been reviewing the publicly available data on the approval for the proposed development at the corner of Sprucewood and Matchette directly behind the current raceway. You might remember that this is Jenny Coco and company, as represented by the numbered company 1223244 Ontario Ltd. After getting our hands on the meeting minutes from PAC, we discovered a couple of juicy tidbits that we thought we’d pass along to our readers.

1. First, and this one blew me away, EPAC, represented by Rob Spring at the PAC meeting, concurred with the recommendation that the land be converted to commercial space suggesting that the impact of commercial development would be less than a residential development. It is unfortunate that EPAC is willing to concede their position on this file. To their credit they did try and recommend a parkland development first although I don’t think that gives them absolution for their current position. Since when did we decide that choosing between the lesser of two evils was acceptable in this city?

2. The Town of LaSalle is opposed to this development and hired the firm Cushman & Wakefield LePage to draft a peer review of the plan. Per the meeting minutes (thanks to Kevin O’Neil for putting me on to this) for the June 26th LaSalle town council, they are ‘unanimously opposed’ to this development. That’s good news for us as this development will require partial approval from LaSalle for the changes to the transportation infrastructure it requires. (Though I think we should handle our own problems in Windsor and not rely on LaSalle to do our “dirty work”.)

3. This proposed site is actually larger than reported in the paper. Some will say, what’s another 20,000 square feet when you are already building 400,000? Given that your average main street business is about 2,000 square feet, it means another 10 businesses worth of selling space. Another 10 local merchants have their futures placed in jeopardy. For the record, 420,000 square feet of retail space are planned.

4. If anyone tries to tell you that this is simply a Commercial Centre, quote them this line: “Mr. Slopen describes the proposal to build … including restaurants, shops and larger big-box type stores.” Later on he concedes that a Loblaw Supercentre is planned for this space. Hey, if their lawyer said it, it must be true!

5. Mr. Slopen, a lawyer for the applicant from the law firm Miller Canfield, makes repeated attempts to coerce PAC into accepting the amendments to Recommendation IV which include removing the requirement for an Environmental Assessment. ‘Why?’ you ask. In his own words -- “the Class Environmental Assessment could slow down the process…and in [my] opinion; there is no reason to carry out this assessment.”

Alas, Mr. Slopen and the applicant succeeded in getting this amendment approved by PAC.

FYI – here is how PAC members voted. (Looks like the fight is on with our PAC sitting city councilors as all voted in favour of the project!)

For: Councilors Hatfield, Postma and Dilkens, Mr. Asmar and Mr. Baker

Against: Ms. Growe-Zdyb, Ms. Cross-Leal and Ms. Willis-More

Write your councilors and let them know that you do not want businesses in Windsor that want to detour around the EA process. We want good corporate citizens in Windsor, who care about the people and the environment of our city. Remember, this is scheduled to go before council on October 29, so time is short to get the word out to your representatives!

PS: Look for more on this topic from SDW in the coming weeks!

Time to think outside the transport truck

Personally, I have intentionally kept out of the massive border crossing debate for numerous reasons. The main reason for my absense? The lack of real solutions being discussed.

I have stated in the past that all the differing sides of the debate are actually arguing the same thing - just at different elevations. They see no problem (or at least they don't verbalize it) with the method with which our nation relies on transporting our manufactured goods, they just have a problem with the route this method of transportation takes - normally through their communities.

So, whether it's a completely buried truck route, a twinned span of the Ambassador Bridge, or the complete repaving of Essex County, it all amounts to the same thing. We're still stuck with these 30,000 daily truck trips! Nobody is proposing any real solutions, so I abstain. Well, maybe it's time to re-evaluate that decision.

Discussing many reasons for objecting to our current transportation model, Richard Gilbert and Anthony Perl have written the book "Transportation Revolutions". From their website...

"Before considering future transport we explore past transport revolutions, to gain insight into the nature and dynamics of profound change. We also examine current transport, with a focus on energy use and adverse impacts. We highlight some of transport’s determinants and analyse the politics and business of transport and how these could undergo major changes. We propose organizational and technical innovations that could ensure effective, secure movement of people and goods in ways that minimize environmental impacts and make the best use of renewable sources of energy.

We conclude that 2008 and 2009 could be pivotal years in preparing transport for the era of oil depletion, the many decades after about 2012 when world oil production could well decline gradually and unavoidably. In considering how to respond, we focus on what could be done in the U.S. and China by 2025. These are the most challenging cases among richer and poorer countries. Transport revolutions should be well under way by 2025, but far from complete.

"Transport Revolutions" could become essential reading for professionals in transport, energy, business, engineering, town planning, and local and national governments as well as students at many levels in transport, civil engineering, geography, town planning, environmental studies, public policy, and political science. "

I suggest that it is time to start questioning the motives of many of the people pushing the status quo, whether that be politicians, the bridge owners, N.Y traffic consultants, etc. They all have a vested interest in the survival of this method of transportation.

I just have the feeling that their priorities aren't the same as ours.

So tell that candidate knocking on your door to take their full tunnel "fix" and go back to the drawing board. It's not a real 21st century solution. It's pandering, and it's insulting.