Who's leading who here?

I don't subscribe to the Windsor Star, but an associate suggested that I check out Tuesday's column from Gord Henderson. Apparently Gord and I are on the same creative wavelength when it comes to opinions about the downtown Engineering School. In case you missed them, here are the two articles : Innovate or Die!, by yours truly and Engineering Excuses by Gord Henderson.

Maybe there really is something to this whole blogging thing after all!

Mixed Signals

In October, when SDW went before council to fight against the two proposed Big Box expansions, one on the east side and one of the far west side, we were rebuffed by every councilor except Alan Halberstadt. In spite of mountains of evidence defending our position and attacking the economic promises of the CocoBox, we couldn't win over any councilors nor did we solicit so much as an honourable mention. Imagine my surprise when, the next morning, Eddie Francis tells AM800 that the city is going to have to reduce services or raise taxes. 'It's just the way things are now' Francis pined. While I've already written about that revelation imagine my surprise when, on Tuesday, Mayor Francis dropped another financial bombshell on Windsor. According to Francis it costs approximately $70 million a year to manage and maintain the infrastructure throughout Windsor. That's roads, sewers, water, etc. Here's the kicker -- Windsor doesn't have enough money to cover a budget that large. Hold on a second...SDW was founded to fight against unsustainable growth and to direct development to the currently built environment, focusing on pedestrian and human scale alternatives to the past projects. (Ed: This does not mean we are anti-car ... we just want to have the option to go carless, or less-car, if we choose!) So when SDW said to council that BigBox was going to cost us $0.44 a square foot (that's about $185,000 a year for the CocoBox), why didn't they listen? More importantly, why, only a few weeks later, are they telling us that we can't support the infrastructure that we have after they voted to BUILD MORE! City Council and Mayor Francis either have very short or very selective memories.

It was suggested by a spectator at council a couple of weeks back that Windsor have a Shadow Council, a sort of Official Opposition, to help keep council in check and accountable. I'm not sure that even a Shadow Council could keep up with the confusion being propogated by some members of our council, but there needs to be something done to encourage accountability of our city officials. I'd like to think that efforts like Scale Down Windsor, and other like venues of new media and information, are making a difference in the way that Windsor, collectively and individually, behaves. As Mahatma Ghandi said "We must become the change we want to see."

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 12

Myth Number 12
Environmentalists are just another special interest. There is no such thing as the public interest.

Reality Check: Environmentalism is both a general interest and a public interest.

It seems that the idea of a public interest has fallen on hard times. Nobody can put their finger on a precise definition of the concept. As a result, environmentalists (and civic activists) tend to be labeled as just another special interest. This labeling marginalizes the environmentalists' viewpoint and makes it seem that they are no different than special interest business groups. For example, a city council might appoint two chemical company representatives and two environmentalists to a committee and assume that these "special interests" would balance out to represent the "public interest".

Business groups typically represents the narrow, private, profit-making interests of a relatively small segment of the community. The focus of such groups is on maximizing short-term economic gain for their particular industry, and they are undoubtedly a special interest in the political sense. Other issues are only important as they relate to this focus. The person who represents a business group on a civic committee is usually financially compensated for representing the group and may receive direct business benefits from committee participation, such as policies and decisions favourable to his or her business.

On the other hand, an environmentalist typically represents a broad range of interests and multiple values that are oriented toward protecting the current and future quality of our environmental support system. The outcome of the environmentalist's interest is the long-term welfare of all citizens and the natural habitat we ultimately depend upon. There is rarely any personal financial reward associated with the environmentalist's positions and more often, this representation comes at a personal cost.

Read the rest of the argument against Myth 12 here.