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.

The Sky has fallen

Well, five years since Nina Fontes took possession of the (Martini) Sky lounge on Pelissier, it has closed it's doors for good after last night's farewell performances by The Hung Jury, Travis Reitsma, and Ron Leary.

One of my favourite downtown watering holes, a night at Sky would promise excellent home-grown music and no drunken Ohio teens throwing up on your shoes. Nina always booked great acts - including perennial faves Ron Leary ("The closing of Sky is a major, major blow to the local roots music community") and "Mr. Chill" Kelly Hoppe ("A chapter is closing on a great venue, and Windsor's infinitely poorer for it") - and supported the local scene with an energy that is sure to be missed. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of one of Nina's contagious smiles knows it - this was one place where everyone was treated like a guest in Nina's home.

Please come out and support the remaining local clubs and indie music scene. They are all here as a part of Windsor's collective cultural heritage, and if we don't embrace them - nobody will.

Speaking of trains...

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, along with the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced a new funding package for VIA Rail Canada Inc., a Crown corporation, to revitalize inter-city passenger rail services in Canada. The funding totals $691.9 million over the next five years.

"Today, Canada's New Government is acting to provide faster, cleaner, more frequent and reliable passenger rail service across Canada," said Minister Cannon. "The corridor between Quebec City and Windsor has the largest passenger volumes and will benefit from infrastructure improvements that will make the entire passenger rail system more efficient and accessible."

...Of the total funding package, $516 million in capital funds will be allocated over five years for infrastructure improvements and equipment refurbishments, beginning in 2007. This investment will be targeted towards:

- fleet renewal, through refurbishment of the F40 locomotives and Light, Rapid and Comfortable (LRC) passenger cars;
- strategic infrastructure improvements to eliminate bottlenecks in the Quebec City-to-Windsor corridor; and
- station refurbishments.

The equipment refurbishment will also help improve the company's environmental performance through increased fuel efficiency and reduced greenhouse gas emissions per passenger.

Now, let's see if some of that cash makes it all the way down the 401.

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 3

Myth Number 3
We must stimulate and subsidize business growth to have good jobs.

Reality Check: Traditional economic development programs are often little more than corporate subsidies that act to fuel local growth.

This is a variation on Myth 2 that emphasizes business growth. The reasoning goes like this: People want good jobs; jobs come from businesses; therefore, creating a good business climate will result in more good jobs. A "good business climate" roughly translates to one with less government regulation, lower taxes, and a higher level of business subsidies.

A study by Dr. William R. Freudenburg of the University of Wisconsin evaluated how well business-climate ratings predict the prosperity of the people living in those areas. He used the three best known business climate ratings (Inc. Magazine, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Fantus Company) and compared the performance of each state, five and ten years after its rating. States with "good" business climate ratings experienced $585 to $1,100 more growth in per capita income after five years than did top-ranked states. The disparity was even greater after ten years.

The study did not address short-term gains. However, over the long run, an individual can expect to receive higher personal income gains in states rated as having bad business climates. This surprising outcome may be due to the emphasis placed by good-business-climate states on investing resources in business rather than directly in people.

for a printable copy of the argument against myth 3, click here.

A Crossroad and a Borderline

When the city of Windsor took down a roadside sign notifying visitors that “You have left the American sector” the response was polarizing to a few, but largely unnoticed. The sign was actually an art installment by Sobey Art Award nominee Ron Terada and, while the general populace failed to notice the pandering of city council to a clientele that are generally viewed more like obnoxious third cousins than close friends, James Patten, the Chief Curator at the Art Gallery of Windsor took the opportunity to begin an examination of border zones.

Nadja Pelkey, an artist working and living in Windsor, has been tapped as the marketing mastermind behind the coming Borderline Case at the Art Gallery October 12th and 13th. “Terada’s work was really just a banal sign meant to stimulate thought and conversation about the nature of borders.” Pelkey said in a recent email interview. Banal or not, the profile of the Windsor-Detroit border as both a social and economic link has been thrust into the open with Terada’s sign being one of the many guideposts leading the way.

The Borderline Case: A Symposium on the Cultural Geography of Windsor/Detroit is the product of the hype and fear-mongering surrounding the art flap above. The result of the efforts of the Art Gallery of Windsor, led by James Patten, hopes to capitalize on the “several academics in the area that are specifically concerned with post-industrial and border cities” according to Pelkey. “There is a great wealth of thought and action” she continues, “not really being tapped right now.” The Borderline Case is intended to bring together academics, activists and interested citizens to discuss and examine the issues at hand through lectures, open forums and art.

With Windsor at a crossroad, a point of view that even Mayor Francis has adopted in recent days with his GreenLink idea, engaging in an intellectually stimulating discussion on the possibilities for sustainability in Windsor is quickly approaching a fever pitch. “Windsor is a very special place” according to Pelkey, “in that the citizenry really has a big stake in the future of Windsor.” An engaged citizenry is essential to the success of any region, large or small. True democracy is not achieved through the simple act of marking a ballot. Democracy is speaking up. Democracy is an action. We must be informed and prepared to act on that information. Patten and Pelkey are doing their part to inform the citizens of Windsor that our current status quo is sub-par by international standards and that, although we may not see it ourselves, we live in the midst of a treasure-trove of diversity and beauty that will sustain us for generations to come. Democracy is powered by people and knowledge. We have both in Windsor, so the buck stops here.

A Borderline Case is taking place at the Art Gallery of Windsor this Friday through to Sunday. Click here for schedules and details

Alt. Trans Big Part of Windsor GreenLink

After many years of debate, the Provincial and Federal governments finally came through with their new cross border plan for Windsor. I'm not sure that this is what we wanted, but it's pretty close to what we expected! The one positive thing is the environmentalists finally got them to consider using rail as part of the plan

View details of the city's new border access route plan, with public meetings next week, schedule and more available here.

Relocalizing Windsor

I was making a pitch about this blog the other day. The feedback we are receiving is great and I can see …Scale Down entering other forms of media in the effort to reach more people. When I was asked about the purpose of the blog, I went on to explain our emphasis on our built environment and our need to refocus our attention to strengthening the physical and social infrastructure that we've already invested in as opposed to our current drive to continually spread ourselves too thin. Removing any roadblocks currently in front of our local economy as opposed to seeking out and subsidizing big-box "solutions" to our current economic crisis. It was then that it struck me, …Scale Down is another group pursuing many of the ideals of the Relocalization movement.

Whereas the established "Relocalization" movement is focused on abating the effects of peak oil, with a fundamentalist demeanor, we are more focused on community quality-of-life goals. In the end, however, the two routes taken will inevitably lead to the same destination - a more compact, self-sufficient community who's time is spent more on community ethics than consumption values.

What is the traditional definition of "Relocalization"?

Relocalization is the most hopeful alternative to unsustainable corporate globalization is a reinvestment in our own communities, building vibrant local economies based on cooperation instead of competition, meeting people's needs instead of manufacturing desires, and respecting the natural environment around us.

Relocalization is the rebuilding of our societies on a human scale, forging strong local economies based on mutually beneficial cooperation instead of predatory competition, meeting people's real needs instead of manufacturing desires, and respecting the natural environment that is the basis of our existence.

Relocalization is an essential adaptation to the depletion of non-renewable resources (oil, natural gas, coal, and even water), and a solution to global warming and other ecological crises.

Relocalization means the democratization of our social, economic, and political lives — an antidote to the community disempowerment and “race to the bottom” fostered by corporate globalization. Regaining control over our future is the key to building healthier, happier, stronger, and more equitable communities throughout the Commonwealth and beyond.

Calling all Volunteers

The Windsor Essex County Environment Committee, through the Active Transportation Sub-committee, is looking for volunteers to participate in a focus group to examine and provide feedback on the current status of active transportation in Windsor. Anyone who is interested can contact Heather Nash at heather4hclv@sympatico.ca to put their name forward. I don't know how many members are going to be needed, but I am sure this will likely be an 'all hands on deck' exercise.'

Debunking the Growth Myth, Part 2

Myth Number 2
We have to grow to provide jobs for people in the community

Reality Check: We can't grow our way out of local unemployment problems. Growth makes the problem bigger.

The overly simplistic logic goes like this: Everybody agrees that people need jobs, therefore, anything that creates jobs must be good. If you oppose growth, then "you don't care about people who need jobs." According to University of California, Santa Barbara Professor Harvey Molotch, "A key ideological prop for the growth machine, especially in appealing to the working class, is the assertion that local growth 'makes jobs.' This claim is aggressively promulgated by developers, bankers, and Chamber of Commerce officials. "

The real question is not whether growth creates jobs, but whether it reduces local unemployment. Presumably, if growth reduced unemployment, a fast-growing city would tend to have a lower unemployment rate than a slow-growing one. To test this, Molotch examined two decades of census data on growth rates and unployment. He compared unemployment rates in the 25 fastest growing cities in the U.S. with the 25 slowest growing. He found no statistical correlation between the growth rate and the unemployment rate. Faster-growing cities are undoubtedly creating new jobs, but, it seems they are also attracting new residents who don't find jobs. The faster-growing city ends up being a bigger city, with a similar unemployment rate and a larger number of people unemployed.

Economic booms may provide temporary relief from unemployment woes, but experience clearly indicates that growth is not the long-term solution to unemployment.

Click here for the rest of the argument against Myth Number 2.

Clone Town

Think we're the only one's dealing with the onslaught of big-box retail and the bland, monotonous environments they create? Think again. Across the pond in the UK, London's New Econoomics Foundation (nef) is leading the charge for local economic development.

They are an independent think-and-do tank that inspires and demonstrates real economic well-being by aiming to improve quality of life by promoting innovative solutions that challenge mainstream thinking on economic, environment and social issues. nef works with all sections of society in the UK and internationally - civil society, government, individuals, businesses and academia - to create more understanding and strategies for change. Clone Town is one of their latest campaigns.

Economic systems that favour the large, remote and uniform threaten our local economies and communities, diversity and choice.

Creating the right balance between local and global economies will help to increase individual well-being, reduce inequalities and promote environmental sustainability. nef is pushing to fight ghost town britain and relocalise the economy through the local works campaign and by empowering communities through enterprise and innovation.

The tools for local economic renewal help people create their own futures. Our flagship inner city 100 project shows the power and dynamism of inner city business, and our work on access to finance addresses the problem of people being excluded from mainstream finance.

Debunking the Growth Myth...

I have been spending a lot of time rereading the urban studies and planning tomes that I have accumulated over the past 20 years. They are many and I've got my work cut out for me. I've been doing this for a number of reasons, one being the fact that I am soon to be unemployed and I hope to actually find employment in the field of study that I went to college for. The other is to better understand the way our built environment is holding Windsor back from becoming the livable and creative community I know that it can be.

One of the first books that I chose to reread is one I cited a few weeks ago on this blog. "Better Not Bigger" by Eben Fodor is a resource geared towards community activists, politicians and planners to educate them on how to take control of urban growth and improve your community. It is a great read, and I am going to be using some of its lessons here on SDW to try and debunk a lot of the long-held myths about the urban growth machine. "The Twelve Big Myths Of Growth" is one chapter that our city councillors need to know, so over the course of the next month, you will get the chance here.

Myth Number 1
Growth Provides Needed Tax Revenues

Reality check: Growth tends to raise local tax rates. The direct and indirect costs of urban growth place new demands on local resources and divert money away from other important public services.

We hear that the more people and businesses we attract to our community, the more tax revenues we will have. Supposedly this will generate surplus funds and enable us to get more public services or pay for a new library or concert hall we couldn't have afforded otherwise, without increasing our individual tax burden. Citizens hoping for a tax windfall from new development are likely to be disappointed. While growth does result in a larger overall tax base, it usually costs more money than it generates, resulting in a net fiscal drain. Harvard economists Alan Altshuler and Jose Gomez-Ibanez report that:

"The available evidence shows that development does not cover new public costs; that is, it brings in less revenue for local governments than the price of servicing it."
In spite of the available evidence, there is an astonishing lack of awareness about the relationship between urban growth and local taxes. One possible reason is the number of good studies looking at this relationship is still quite small. While our local governments spend billions of dollars every year on new infrastructure to serve growth, few have deemed it worthwhile to examine how much it costs, and who pays for it and who benefits from it.

Read the rest of the argument against Myth Number 1 here.

First, we kill all the architects...

Danny Lyon, of the New York Times, has been asked to help design a city.

Here's what he recommends.

A random Thanksgiving news article

“GROWING COOLER” --
AN INESCAPABLE CHALLENGE

By Neal Peirce

WASHINGTON -- Increasing the fuel efficiency of the cars we drive -- the environmentalists’ perennial battle to get Detroit to improve vehicle gas mileage --is a great cause.

But it’s not enough. We have to go a giant step farther with sharp cuts in how far, and how often, we drive. If we don’t, there’s virtually no chance we can reduce our cars’ massive greenhouse gas emissions -- now responsible for 45 percent of automobile carbon emissions worldwide.

The message and the math are incorporated in a just-released report -- “Growing Cooler” -- issued by the prestigious Urban Land Institute in collaboration with Smart Growth America and allied organizations.

The problem’s complex and fierce. There’s now broad agreement among scientists that to restrain an upward spiral in global warming -- with dangerously rising seas and spreading deserts -- global temperature rise must be limited to 2 degrees Celsius. And that to reach that goal, the U.S., up to now the world’s champion polluter, must cut its carbon dioxide emissions between 60 to 80 percent by 2050, relative to their 1990 levels.

The authors projected that even if stiffer new fuel economy standards currently now before Congress are approved, and even if there’s progress on hybrid cars and lower-carbon fuels, the nation’s transportation-related CO2 emissions in 2030 would be 12 percent above the 2005 level and 40 percent above the 1990 level, casting a deep shadow across the 2050 goal.

So is there any way out? Yes, they reply: cut back sharply on the miles we drive our vehicles. Since 1980, total miles driven by Americans has grown three times faster than the rise in our population, even twice as fast as vehicle registrations. The vast majority of new development is laid out assuming people will use cars for virtually all trips. Homes have been built ever-further from workplaces. Shopping malls, big retail boxes, office parks and new schools are routinely built without a thought to pedestrians or public transit. The net result: more and longer auto trips, most often driving alone.

But what if we switched to develop more compactly? Surveys show at least a third of us would now prefer more compact communities in which homes, town centers, shops, parks and schools are in walking or biking distance. It’s true that many young families feel obliged to “drive ‘til you qualify” -- ever-longer commutes for an affordable mortgage. But 88 percent of household growth from 2000 to 2025 is expected to be by elderly people or childless families. Aging baby boomers will be driving less and looking for walkable environments; one survey shows Gen Xers tend to value diverse, compact communities and show disillusionment with “bland vanilla suburbs.”

“Growing Cooler” offers a “smart growth” recipe of walkable, transit-served and “New Urbanist”-style developments, more compact new housing, shops and offices filling in vacant lots or sites of failing shopping centers rather than replacing forests or farmland. In such developments, people typically drive 20 to 40 percent less than on the suburban edge.

The chance for change could be great because there’ll likely be a massive two- thirds turnover of the nation’s building stock by 2050 -- close to 90 million new or replaced homes, 190 billion square feet of new offices, stores and institutions.

If only 60 percent of that development is clustered in compact, mixed-use areas, the “Growing Cooler” authors calculate vehicle miles traveled would be cut back enough to slash transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by a significant 7 to 10 percent.

But declaring such a vision and achieving it won’t be easy. As Rick Cole, urban author and city manager of Ventura, Calif., observes, our predominant dream “remains a suburban one, enforced by rigid zoning codes and churned out by developers on autopilot.”

And changing it will churn the political waters. Cole cites the political firestorm set off when California Attorney General Jerry Brown sued rapidly-growing San Bernardino County and pressured other counties to show how their development plans will reduce greenhouse gases. Brown's San Bernardino suit spurred opposition from the building industry and the state Chamber of Commerce, as well as local officials and Republicans in the state’s legislature. But the county recently did agree to devise strategies to reduce CO2 emissions.

Beyond court suits, Cole suggests cities themselves must be more proactive by finding room for more people in their already developed footprint, and assuring prospective new residents the attractions Americans are sure to demand -- “far greener urban building, far better urban schools, far more attractive urban parks, far safer urban streets.”

Plus, I’d add, develop the same kind of comprehensive, reliable rail and bus systems that Europe and Japan offer – real alternatives to the private car.

Carbon-saving communities may be a 21st century imperative. But the transition to them is likely to be one of the most challenging adjustments Americans have ever made.

For Release Sunday, October 7, 2007
© 2007 Washington Post Writers Group

Cultural Geography Symposium at AGW

Architecture Matters - Get Involved!

Borderline Case: a symposium on the cultural geography of Windsor/Detroit

at the Art Gallery of Windsor

Friday, October 12 - 7:00 PM

The weekend kick-off with guest speaker Lisa Rochon, architecture critic for the Globe And Mail, and the winner of the National Newspaper Awards for Arts and Entertainment. Lisa will share her insights on architecture, mega projects, public spaces, and city building.

Free admission - limited seating.

Meet guest speakers from Windsor, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Toronto, Vancouver and Vienna.

Tour the four architecture exhibitions: "High Hopes: Modern Architecture in Windsor, 1940 - 1970", "The Wall", "Build Me Up/Tear Me Down", and "Albert Kahn in Windsor: Plans and Drawings".

Saturday, October 13 - 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM

Morning Session: History Lessons - 9:30 AM - 12:00 noon.

Join panellists Lee Rodney, Veronika Mogyorody, Gloria House and Andrew Herscher in a lively discussion of how Windsor and Detroit have been shaped by social, economic, political and geographical forces.

Afternoon Session: Creative City/Shrinking City - 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM

Where are we going? How do we define the future of our cities? Join Marcel O'Gorman, Luis Jacob, Chris McNamara, Sabine Bitter and Helmut Weber in an animated discussion about new and exciting models for urban growth

Contact Nicole McCabe at the AGW, 519-977-0013 ext 134 or nmcabe@agw.ca for details and times. A WindsorSEEN activity.

Living in the Core

While I’m a strong advocate for downtown Windsor, my views are not limited to its boundaries. I believe that the City as a whole should have the same agenda, but it is only natural and logical to start in the downtown locale and expand outward. This is the methodology that Detroit, and so many other cities, has so successfully embraced.

Much has been posted on the subject of amenities and on the benefits of living downtown, Windsor still faces the challenges of attracting new residents and residential developments to its city centre. Many are beginning to realize the beauty and uniqueness of our riverfront but few are willing to live on its doorstep.

The City’s Planning Department has recommended the allocation of $150,000 to be utilized towards residential market studies prior to the adoption of any of the residential development incentives and recommendations made by the Community Improvement Plan. Theoretically, this is the correct approach however it does not address the immeasurable negative consequences these delays will have on our community.

One such example is that the of the current Community Improvement Plans which have been put on hold until 2012 - at which time we will be facing the same, if not greater, fiscal challenges. After completing CIP's 4 years ago, I do not have confidence that they will not simply be put on hold again either. In the meantime, there are no incentives to redevelop the Glengarry-Marentette area, most of Downtown, and every other neighbourhood in which Community Improvement Plans have been established. By that time Ottawa, Walkerville and Erie St. may be in a greater crisis.

Our developers are well aware of the City’s economic challenges and what the market will bear when it comes to new housing. $150,000 would be better spent on changing people’s perceptions of our downtown.

Tax Incentive Financing is only one measure of what should be provided to developers. We need to start promoting the many benefits of living downtown. Since 2003, I have been lobbying for residential development in our city centre, and I will continue to do so until action is taken. I have always been of the opinion that if residential development is integrated into the city’s centre, businesses are smart enought to locate near customers. Other indirect goals will be the fact that the type of residents who choose to live downtown will be the ones who will likely support and attend arts events, making facilities like the Capitol Theatre and the Art Gallery less dependant on public funding. In fact I tell you that no matter what the question is about Windsor's challenges, whether it be Arts, Economic Development, Tourism, Clean and Safe Issues, the solution includes residential development in the core. Just look across the river at Detroit or any other city that has recovered from a downturn.

Click here to see some of those benefits

Disclaimer: The views of my blog entry are my own and may not reflect the views or policy of the DWBIA

Scale Down's latest addition

I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce you to Scale Down's newest contributor, Mark Boscariol.

This is an exciting time for Windsor's downtown, and we're extremely thrilled to have Mark join us here at SDW to help update and analyze all the issues and oportunities presented to it.

For those of you who don't know Mark (I'm sure there's one or two in Windsor...somewhere), he is the co-owner in management of Chanoso’s/Buda/the Room. (http://www.255downtown.com/) located in the heart of Windsor. Mark is a past-chair of the Downtown Windsor Business Improvement Association (DWBIA) who has run businesses in Nova Scotia, Alberta and Ontario, allowing him to spend much time in different communities to see how they have developed their areas. This has also given him extensive knowledge of the retail industry.

Mark walks the talk when it comes to downtown revitalization, playing an active role in the restoration and development of 255 Ouellette Avenue - a building that he believes was once downtown Windsor’s biggest eyesore - and converting it to house a thriving restaurant/banquet hall/café/billiards entertainment bar. He played an active role in the development of Edith Cavell Condominiums, the adaptive reuse of the former school at 5955 Ontario, one of 5 buildings selected to receive a Built Heritage Award Certificate. I could go on...

Mark understands the impact Windsor's bult environment has on our community and culture, and will add a breadth and depth to our discourse on the effects the decisions our elected officals and residents make have on our city.

Welcome aboard, Mark. We're going to have a lot of fun...

Head on over to...

Thought we'd point you in the direction of a couple of other local bloggers who should probably be moonlighting with ...Scale Down.

Head over to Blog Windsor for a tasty surprise on Ottawa Street, and then over to International Metroplis if you want to bring it back up again.

House hunting on two wheels

How far down the livable-city road does Windsor have to travel before a business such as this becomes a viable one here? When they do begin to pop up, we will then know that we are employing proper planning strategies

From the innovative business idea website, Springwise

House-hunting can be a difficult and time-consuming process in which it often feels like you spend more time in a real estate agent's car than you do viewing houses. Pedal To Properties has come up with a novel concept whereby agents offer customers the chance to check out properties and neighbourhoods in a more healthful and leisurely fashion: via bicycle.

The free—and environmentally friendly—service is completely optional for clients, but those who choose to can tour through neighbourhoods and visit properties by cruiser bike. Boulder-based Pedal To Properties's agents meet clients with a few of the company's small fleet of cruiser bikes attached to the back of their car. An immersing ride can follow, giving potential buyers an alternative way to experience a neighbourhood and view multiple properties in an area without the hassle of getting in and out of a car.Launched by real estate professional, avid cyclist and Ironman triathlete Matt Kolb, Pedal to Properties combines health and fun with the home-buying process, providing a hyper-localized feel for neighbourhood vibes that could never be attained by car. The company is currently licensing its model to realtors across the United States, but the concept is simple, and could be applied virtually anywhere (reminds us of City Running Tours, which combines sightseeing and exercise). Of course, Boulder is an exceptionally fit kind of town, so realtors and other service providers in similarly health-conscious areas: this one's especially for you.

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.

Money for bike lanes

Someone should let city council and the Windsor Bicycling Committee know that the feds are ponying up more cash to speed up the implementation of alternative transportation.

Maybe we won't have as many bike lanes that lead to nowhere scattered around Windsor.

Transport Canada - New MOST Funding

Transport Canada is pleased to announce that the Moving On Sustainable Transportation (MOST) Program is set to continue supporting innovative sustainable transportation projects with an additional $3.2 Million for contributions over the next five years. The first funding round has a deadline of November 30, 2007. Learn how to apply with the new Applicant’s Guide and download the new Application Form by visiting our website.

Priorities, or lack thereof...

So, us Windsorites get multi-million dollar ice rinks and "improved" roads to drive on, but then we are told to cut back on other things to pay for them - like that extracurricular activity called literacy!

But I'm sure the neighbourhoods of Sandwich, South Walkerville, Remington Park and Forest Glade don't mind sacrificing a little bit of their communities for the common good.

4 Windsor public libraries face budget axe

The Windsor Public Library Board says it may close up to four branches and eliminate Sunday service to reach a 10 per cent budget cut.

The drastic measures were put forward by the library board after a six-hour budget session on Saturday. Each city department is being asked to suggest cuts to their departments to achieve a 10 per cent cut to help keep the city's tax increase at zero. "The feeling is that after increasing water rates by 86 per cent, the ratepayers aren't in the mood for more and that exercise has begun and the city needs to find $15 million in savings," Ward 3 said Coun. Alan Halberstadt, the chair of the library board.

Under the worst-case scenario put forward by the board between two and four library branches could close including Sandwich, South Walkerville, Remington Park and Forest Glade. "The board did pass a resolution that they strongly argued against service reductions, but if required, here is what could be cut," said Halberstadt. "There could also be a reduction in hours across the board. It's a little vague at this point."

The board needs to trim about $800,000 from its budget of just under $8 million.

Halberstadt said the library's largest expense is its staff. "A lot of our costs are staff and a lot of those costs are controlled by collective agreements," said Halberstadt. Halberstadt's council colleague on the board, Dave Brister of Ward 1, said he doesn't want any branches to close. "One of the things we have to look at before we start cutting service levels is to review administrative costs," said Brister. Brister said the removal of Sunday service would also make little sense. "Sunday has the highest use per hour of any day of the week," said Brister. "To even consider closing branches and eliminating Sunday service is a non-starter." Brister said the focus should be on trimming administrative costs. City departments are to provide their preliminary budgets to city administration by the end of the month so they can compile a draft budget for councillors. Any branch closures or service reductions would require the final approval of city council during budget deliberations next year.

DIY: Make a killing with land speculation.

This is a reprint from a 13 year old Economist magazine I found at the dentist office. I think you'll find that the path to riches is just as easy to follow today as it was in 1994... (Ed: Make sure you click on the picture to the left to check out JibJab.com and their spoof on Big Box shopping.)

The Classic Land Development Scheme

Making a tidy profit on land requires more than just smart buying and selling. The idea is to buy a frog and turn it into a prince. To make the big bucks, you need to do a complete "makeover" using the services of local government, compliments of local taxpayers. Here's an example of how it's done:

Step 1: Buy 200 acres of undevelopable wetlands outside the city limits for a song.

Step 2: Get the city to annex the land and rezone it for commercial use (but it still can't be developed, due to federal wetlands protection laws.)

Step 3: Have city planning staff conduct a costly wetlands planning process (at taxpayers expense) to enable the area's landowners to develop their land by "restoring" wetlands elsewhere.

Step4: Get the city to declare the entire area an "enterprise zone" allowing all new businesses locating there to operate tax-free for the first three to five ears. (directly increasing the value of this land, again at taxpayers expense)

Step 5: But wait, there's more! The city manager authorizes construction of $20 million in public infrastructure (sewers, roads, etc.) to serve this vacant land at no charge to the landowners.

Step 6: The local electric utility gets with the program and builds power lines and a transformer station to serve the anticipated power needs of the commercial area (compliments of the utilities ratepayers)

Step 7: Feeling that they have not yet done enough, local governments fund an economic development agency to recruit big, outside corporations to the area.

Step 8: Bingo! Secret negotiations and promises of special favors, cheap labor, and expedited building permits lure a giant retailer to buy the land for millions of dollars. The retailer announces plans for a mega-million dollar big-box retail plaza.

Step 9: Public concern about the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the commercial plaza cause city staff to work overtime to expedite permit approvals and quell citizen opposition. City hires a PR firm to advise them on how to sell the development to the public.

Step 10: Commercial plaza gets built in spite of massive public opposition

Now, does this tongue-in-cheek how-to article sound like anything that's been in the news lately?

Water-main-Gate

As the blogging community in Windsor becomes a greater force to be reckoned with, more and more insiders, concerned citizens and people just generally sick and tired of the state of the city are beginning to come forward to push items into the lime light.

Chris Schunurr, who you might remember as a candidate for council in the last election put me on to a post at WindsorCityBlog. (Before you go off reading it and thinking that SDW has lost its' focus, let me remind you that every tax dollar spent means less tax dollars for rebuilding Windsor.)

For the record, SDW is looking to bring all parties to the table to rebuild Windsor. This is not a partisan blog, although the accusations might be different. We simply want to rebuild Windsor, strengthen neighbourhoods, and develop a pattern of sustainable living for all citizens. While we might shake our heads in disbelief at some of the decisions made by our elected, and not elected, officials, we will also be the first to give kudos to the city, schoolboard or anyone else who might be worthy of SDW praise (for whatever it is worth).

Don't think we've lost vision, we just want the citizenry to be informed.

Josh

"Bic" Heritage

I am continually reminded that not everyone takes pride in their homes, nor their community.

This revelation doesn't percolate to the surface easily when it's a disposable McHome or a disposable McNeighbourhood that is affected. But when it's in part of Windsor's most historic neighbourhoods - with homes dating back over 100 years - and planned by Hiram Walker himself, the loss really strikes a chord.

You may remember this home, which was featured in the Windsor Star a while back, due to the fact it was abandoned by its owners while leaving dozens of cats locked inside to fend for themselves. Becoming known as "The Cat House" (for less lusty reasons than you think) didn't help its notoriety. A walk along the sidewalk in front of this house brought tears to your eyes, due to the heavy amonia vapours from the cat urine. The neighbours couldn't enjoy their decks or patios (which are what makes this THE neighbourhood to live in), had to close their doors and windows and run the air conditioners at all times to avoid the stench. It was a source of distress for everyone, and now their happy it's gone. A house demolished due to cat pee.

Some video of the action...

So, let's morn the loss - but in the same breath, hope - that whatever happens in this now-vacant lot, it will be done with respect to the fabric of this tight-knit walkable community that has very deep roots in this city

On the road, again...

Windsor's downtown darling, Ron Leary, is eastward bound this time.

WHAT?!? Not familiar with Ron and his troubadour stylings? You've gotta get downtown more, Amigo!

Ron has been, and will be again soon, one of Windsor's hardest working singer/songwriters. Since his kickoff party at Sky Loung (where his adoring fans made sure his car was packed as nutritiously as possible) at the beginning of August, Ron has been criss-crossing this big ol' country of ours spreading his own scent of Windsor love.

So I thought I'd point you to CBC Radio 3, who interviewed Ron a couple of weeks ago in BC. Listen to what Ron has to say about Windsor's musical culture, living within view of Detroit and all that goes along with her, and his road trip in general. Ron is one of the many people who make downtown Windsor a wonderful place to be.

Looking forward to having you home again, Ron.

In the looking glass?

First off - I don't want anyone to feel that the M.O. of SDW has shifted off of "Windsor's built environment and it's cultural effects" to "Let's get an Downtown Campus". That does seem to be the direction a lot of SDW posts have taken lately, but our outlook remains the same. Strengthen the city's heart and the rest of the city will flourish.

In light of that disclaimer, I want to point you to an article a friend forwarded to me that appeared in the Toronto Star on, ironically, International Car Free Day. Now, as you read this article and you can easily and forgivably believe that Christopher Hume - Toronto's all-knowing urban critic - actually had Windsor in his mind (except for his waterfront observation) as he wrote it. It is actually eerie the similarities. But, who am I to make the judgement for you. Read it and let me know...

Urban campus could have revived Oshawa

September 22, 2007

Christopher Hume

What can one say about Oshawa? Here is a city that has made every mistake in the book; a place so devoted to its own ugliness, it has become almost remarkable. The clear impression one gets from even a cursory visit is that no one cares; neither its leaders, nor its residents. This is a city in which people live, but refuse to inhabit. Who can blame them? Other than the usual shopping malls, franchises and fast-food outlets, there's practically nothing here. True, there is the Robert McLaughlin Gallery, but it seems somehow an afterthought. There's even a waterfront, though it's as plain as can be, dull even.

Oshawa's claim to fame, of course, has been the automobile industry. Interesting the effect that U.S. car manufacturers seem to have on the communities in which they're located; think of Detroit, North America's most spectacular failed city, and one can't help but wonder if there isn't some connection between urban decay and car makers.

Certainly, the automobile has done its share of damage to Oshawa, but this is something it has in common with many other communities throughout the continent, indeed, the globe. Still, bisected by Highway 401 and rent with feeder arteries, Oshawa does appear to have sacrificed an awful lot so that Ontarians can remain in their cars as long as possible. But it would be wrong to cast Oshawa as a victim, even of its own success. For instance, when it was chosen as the location of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, the campus was built at the far north end of the city, ensuring that it falls into the same commuter category as the rest of Oshawa.

One might have expected the UOIT to be situated in the "downtown" core where the on-going demise of General Motors has left lots of land vacant. Surely that would have made more sense, especially at a time when the environment has emerged as the major issue we face.
Building dense, urban communities is infinitely preferable to sprawl, which Oshawa already has lots of.

Besides, "downtown" Oshawa – and we use the term loosely – needs all the help it can get. An urban campus would have brought hundreds, if not thousands, of people into the city and provided an economic, social and maybe even a cultural boost. It could also have brought some vitality and sense of place to a hopelessly unfocused and unformed city.

And at a time when the major issue we face is that of climate change, the need to build compact and dense cities is more urgent than ever.

Clearly, this isn't a message that has been heard in the "City that Motovates Canada."

Obviously, we here in Windsor are not suffering our fate alone. We are, in fact, governed by the same economic and social laws as everyone else. Why is it that we will not follow the leads shown us by other successful communities who've turned their fate's around? It's high time that we started to do just that.

Empty offices litter downtown,

The office vacancy rate in Windsor is more than triple the national average while average net rent is half what is being charged nationally, according to third-quarter projections released this week by real estate broker CB Richard Ellis.

The figures show that Windsor has 600,000 square feet of vacant office space for a vacancy rate of 19.2 per cent which is up from 18.2 per cent in the second quarter. The national rate is 5.7 per cent.

Of the 10 other metropolitan areas surveyed, only London with a vacancy rate of 16.6 per cent comes close to matching Windsor's. Following London is Montreal, 8.6; Winnipeg, 8.3; Waterloo, 7.2; Toronto, 5.8; Halifax, 5.5; Edmonton, 5.1; Ottawa, 4.1; Calgary, 3.1 and Vancouver, 3.0.

Windsor's average net rent of $10.26 per square foot is the lowest of the cities surveyed and less than half the national average of $21.99. London has the second-lowest net rent of $11.87 followed by Waterloo, $12.34; Winnipeg, $15.25; Halifax, $17.24; Montreal, $18.09; Edmonton, $22.55; Toronto, $22.76; Ottawa, $24.50; Vancouver $29.13 and Calgary $43.90.

So tell me, exactly why is it that Windsor cannot attract any significant corporate interest when we have so many things going for us? Proximity to markets, low operating costs and lost cost of living for employees are usually some of the first things business relocators look for in a market.

Maybe it has nothing to do with our physical amenities, or lack thereof. Maybe, as many readers have noted, it has more to do with City Hall than our unions and pollution - the usual scapegoats?

So, it's proof you want, is it?

At a recent family get together, Uncle John (his real name) was trying to talk my partner and I into moving our whole family down to Phoenix, Arizona and open a coffee shop with him. Apparently, the downtown core of Phoenix is positively booming and the lineups for a Starbucks is out the door and around the corner. It's not that we are necessarily top notch Barista entrepreneurs - we're not. He just likes having his family near by. You've gotta like the guy!

Now, I'm not writing to you to aire my consistantly tough decisions (but if council doesn't do something to make downtown life here in Windsor better, I'll be Phoenix bound!), but to let you in on exactly why Phoenix is at the point where it is. In Uncle John's attempts to lure us to the land of 110-degrees-in-the-shade sunshine, we occasionally get emails from him with certain attachments that make us question why we're still in Windsor.

Read this article he sent us from the October, '07 issue of Phoenix Magazine and you will learn that the impetus to this downtown revitalization is eerily familiar to Windsorites, and not just because you've read a bit about it here before.

According to Phoenix City Councilman Michael Johnson, the big focus on their downtown started, ironically, with the failed effort to lure the Cardinals football stadium. "We weren't able to get the stadium, but as a result we ended up purchasing a lot of property, which became necessary when we started looking at ASU and the biotech campus".

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

I don't think I need to say any more. Now - call your councillor and ask him/her why we're sitting on this Downtown University Campus idea. Some of them need you to spell it out for them. What more proof do they need?