Why Is this BLOG So Negative?

I like meeting with readers of my BLOG. When people I do not know write to me, I quite often invite them out for a coffee to discuss what they have written.

I met an out of town reader the other day and he was quite complimentary about my musings, even if he and I disagreed on some very important matters. One word of advice that he offered to me was that I should try and be more "positive" in what I wrote.

To be honest, I knew he was right. I felt that the tone of this BLOG was becoming too negative in what I was saying about the Mayor and Council and vowed to myself to try and do better.

But seriously, dear reader, after reading the story about the proposed meeting between the Windsor Council and Detroit Council in the Star, can you really blame me for writing the way I do. Here is the story in case you have forgotten:

• Detroit asked to oppose bid
  Council will appeal Motor City to reject bridge plan to control U.S side of tunnel
  Dave Battagello, Windsor Star, Published: Friday, February 24, 2006
  
  Windsor city councillors will ask their Detroit counterparts Tuesday to oppose a bid by the Ambassador Bridge to take over operations of the U.S. side of the Windsor-Detroit tunnel.
  
  Detroit holds ownership and is leasing it to an Australian bank, but is weighing a $20-million US takeover offer from bridge owner Matty Moroun.
  
  Detroit council was poised to dismiss the offer, but that was before municipal elections took place in November. Of the city's nine councillors, four are newly elected, raising fears the bridge takeover bid may get new life.
  
  "Somebody made a deal, but then it was put to bed," said Coun. Jo-Anne Gignac. "Some say it's over; there are all kinds of theories. I think we have to talk about it."
  
  The two councils will meet at the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce office Tuesday at 5:30 p.m.
  
  "It's a good time to sit down and discuss the importance of the tunnel to the viability of our downtowns. There are also a huge number of Canadians coming through there every day -- nurses, doctors. It's pretty critical for them."
  
  Coun. Alan Halberstadt described the potential tunnel deal as the "No. 1 issue to discuss at the meeting.
  
  "I would hope to get a commitment out of them that this issue not be revisited," he said.
  
  It appears the city of Windsor -- which owns the Canadian side -- is also considering whether it will make its own offer to take control of the tunnel's U.S. side so the border crossing can remain under public ownership.
  
  "It's very important for the city that in order to prevent it falling in the hands of any individual we may have to step up to the plate," said Coun. Ron Jones.
  
  "I don't want it to fall into the bridge's hands or any one individual. It's time for public ownership."
  
  

Now I have advocated that the two Councils work together for a long time to deal with the border issue. It only makes sense that the elected local representatives play a big role in deciding where the new bridge will go rather than a bunch of bureaucrats. Our councils should know the most about the impact of a long-term solution on our region and should be able to negotiate between themselves a solution that minimizes the negative impact on the population on both sides of the river.

So I had high hopes that we were going to start getting somewhere. Then I read the story. Can you now honestly tell me that I can be positive about what our Council is doing. Let me explain:

1. Did you see one word in the story about a discussion about a long-term solution
2. I would have thought that creating a smooth flow of traffic was the main issue at both the Bridge and Tunnel (after all, we just had the Tunnel Plaza "public" information session fiasco a few days ago) but it is not. The "potential tunnel deal [is] the "No. 1 issue to discuss at the meeting."
3. Haven't they got the facts straight yet? There is no proposed "takeover" by the Bridge Co. They are NOT trying to be the owner
4. Don't our Councillors know yet that the Tunnel is publicly owned! The cities of Detroit and Windsor already own it!
5. There is an interesting conflict of interest issue here that Windsorites should be concerned about. This is no longer a "City" meeting but rather it has turned into a "Windsor Tunnel Commission" meeting with a few Councillor hangers-on to try and negotiate a deal to own/lease/operate the Tunnel with the City of Detroit.
6. I wonder if Windsor is now violating Detroit's purchasing rules by trying to do a deal in this manner.

I cannot believe the arrogance of our Mayor and Councillors. They were elected to run a city not to run a tunnel. Is it their job to make Eddie Francis a new border operator? If the purpose is for "the city of Windsor [to] make its own offer to take control of the tunnel's U.S. side " I would like to know where Council has been given the authority to do this!

Eddie tried to do accomplish this without directly telling the public with the infamous Agenda Item #5 and ran when 16 delegations opposed him.

If I were advising Council, I would suggest that they change the agenda quickly and deal with the important issues surrounding the border. The last thing that Windsor Council should do is discuss business issues with Detroit Council concerning the financial deal at the Tunnel. There may be a lot of red on the floor before the discussion is done. Red ink for Windsor taxpayers I mean!

I am sorry, now you may understand the reason why I cannot be positive. Can you blame me when you see amateurs trying to play entrepreneur with my tax dollars!