Letters To The BLOGmeister

I now have to have a Letters to the Blogmeister additon to the BLOGsite it appears. (Do you like my Superior Park mailbox?). I received some thoughtful responses to my Blogs on the arena that I thought I would post.

In addition I received several letters about the Riverside widening for bicycles that is being portrayed as an US against THEM campaign that I find interesting. It will get hot and heavy when it comes to Council later in the year. (Plus an exchange about an absurd idea about bikes on the new bridge)

What you will find in common is a populace becoming more and more disenchanted with our Leadership of this City. Whether that will be reflected in the municipal election results with incumbents being turfed remains to be seen.

• You hit the proverbial nail on the head Ed. Coming soon takes on a new meaning with this council and mayor. What I still can't swallow is the fact that the Glengarry projects will need upwards of $20 million in renovations in the coming years so why wouldn't the city have built the arena on that site and instead chose to place it a 5 minute drive away from the Ice Track?
  
  The city could have moved the low income families and place them throughout the city (studies have shown that placing low income families in areas that are not depressed helps to get them out of the cycle of poverty)instead of "ghetto-izing" them, demolish the projects and build the arena there. It would have been close enough to downtown to attract people to the area. Close enough to the casino. Close enough to give a depressed area new life. The best incentive of all would have given low income families hope instead of keeping them in a crime and drug infested area with no hope for the future as it stands.
  
  With this scenario complete, the city would have saved the $20 million plus it is going to have to use to fix the current problem of the Glengarry area. The city would then be able to work on the "urban village" on the west side to attract the people that are needed to make a vibrant downtown.
  
  But then again...should have, could have, would have is about as good as "coming soon". Just pie-in-the-sky wishing from a taxpayer in a declining city (shades of Detroit anyone??).
  
  Thanks for your time and I do enjoy your blog.
  
  
  
• Well I guess there are 3 of us who are skeptical of this great arena deal , yourself , David Cassivi and myself. I was not going to vote for Cassivi but because he stepped up for his Ward against the rest of his Council and his honour The Great Eddie Francis Mr. Cassivi will get my vote. They say this Arena won't cost the taxpayer nothing but watch when they have to acquire the necessary property and cost over-runs that most certainly will come to reality before the Arena is completed, I am worried that the word free will be tossed out the window.In my opinion the City Council had the proverbial gun pointed at their heads to get an Arena Project started because of Tecumseh's 'get er done' attitude and their progressive way of conducting their business.It's funny how our Council has filed and noted, referred and deferred some much better proposals but when Tecumseh jumps into the mix all of a sudden we have a supposedly blockbuster deal that makes Francis and his cohorts look like wise financial wizzards. In closing Ed I strongly agree with your position on an investigation of this whole stinking mess.
  
  Sorry about the long ranting but this has me very ticked off.

• Can we have a contest of where the arena is really going. I bet you I will win when I say at the Grace Hospital Site and that Borealis is going to build it.





• Recommendation B, section V:
  
  “That administration be directed to negotiate an agreement with PCR Contractors Inc. for the construction of the east end recreation complex for an amount not to exceed $47, 920,000.00 in form satisfactory to the City Solicitor…”
  
  PCR proposal reads on page 4:
  
  “Total lump sum price for the above listed: $47,920,000.00 + GST”
  
  
  Total cost including GST is $50,800,000.00. This exceeds the $47,920,000 million. Administration is not authorized to negotiate this deal since the GST increases the price beyond what they are authorized to negotiate.
  
  This quote is valid until October 31, 2006.
  
  Therefore, since Administration asked for 30 days to prepare a report “preferably within 30 days”, the report should be made available to council by November 4, which exceeds the fixed price guarantee date, after which, there would be no price guarantee according the PCR proposal.





• As a long time off and on reader of your blog, I have enjoyed your recent entries. Much like you, I too am feeling the frustration of a dying economy and a city council & mayor with no vision or leadership. I'm really wondering how much of a future there is in these parts...Keep up the good work.





• [email 1] ..did the University ever get that stadium payment situation resolved with the City of Windsor...........the one going back to Mike Hurst? if not, how is it that there is $$$ for a new arena complex? Isn't the University Stadium in Councillor Postma's riding? [email 2] so we're building an arena complex, Eddie was a wizard and save ka-billions from MFP but they cannot pay money ...promised to an institution that is key to the city.............hmmm. great. (sarcasm intended)





• It frightens me at the thought of the amount of property taxes we will be paying the City of Windsor within the next 3 years.
  
  How can we afford all the spending? Everyone seems to have their own personal agenda and no one in this city seems to be able to get it together. We are losing jobs, taxes are rising and the city is spending more than they have, like an arena that 10%(?) of the city wants. I spoke to city tax and revenue spokesperson who told me that a study reported the need for another arena (we already have 7 plus 10 community centres) to help bring the community together. Are you kidding me? I asked for a copy of the study so I could see for myself, only to realize after asking her 3 times, she was unable to answer the question as to where this report is or where I, a tax payer, could get a copy. Do you know of such a report? Do you really think we need or can afford such a luxury at this time when the economic future is at risk? What the hell is wrong with this city?

• Dear neighbours-
  
  You have very little time left to protect your property investment.
  
  You would be well advised to read the following and
  
  Contact the Mayor and Council person you are thinking of voting for and ask them if they are ‘for’ or against widening riverside drive. Your most expensive investment. If they are ‘for’ widening do not vote for them.
  
  In addition, spend the time today to email and/ or call your current Council person and advise them you do not want your street widened.
  
  We have gone to all the meetings held by the city to change Riverside Drive.
  
  The consultant has made the following recommendations, so we are told!
  
  Widen Riverside Drive to accommodate ‘bicycle’ paths!
  (s h u d d e r !!!!)
  
  What will it take to do this….at a minimum
  *sewers will have to be dug up.
  *telephone poles will have to be moved back onto your property.
  *fire hydrants will have to be moved back onto your property.
  *your costly landscaping will be chopped off
  *the road will be right alongside your house or garage.
  *your driveway will be dug up
  *your ornaments and fences may have to go.
  *will some of your property have to be expropriated??
  *will your ‘curb’ appeal be affected?
  
  Satisfy yourself about what i am saying go on line and look at the plans for your property
  
  Riverside drive vista improvement project
  Http://www.citywindsor.ca/001494.asp
  On the maps the ..
  Black dash is what you own, your existing property.
  A blue line is existing edge of pavement.
  A solid red line is new edge of pavement
  
  Tell me, how many bicyclists do you see during the ‘good weather’ enjoying your investment? Maybe as many as 5/day???. However, once they do this at a minimum cost to you of $16 million dollars, your investment has every possibility of being devalued. And, do you see any happy cyclists enjoying the scenery you provided during the bad winter months? No you don’t. But you will see cars with much closer access to your property on those icy winter nights. Isn’t your property insurance already high enough?
  
  Even if it were true, that the road was going to be widened for bicycle paths, do you want more bicycles going down this road to impede access to your property??? To create more driver frustration??
  
  What is wrong with the trails that were developed for them, what is wrong with the sidewalks? Bicycles can stop much more easily for the few individuals on the sidewalks than the cars and busses can.
  
  Are you going to let a handful of cyclists, that didn’t pay for your properties, and some elected non invested, current public officials determine your outcome?
  
  I urge you to make your rejection known, of the plan to widen Riverside Drive, on the pretension of using it to ‘calm’ traffic, at your continual expense...
  
  Several years ago the city wanted to widen riverside drive to a 4lane thoroughfare. It did not pass. But, you can be sure that it isn’t a dead issue.
  
  If the city were truly intent upon ‘calming’ traffic on this road they would implement the residents recommendations to put in stop signs and or stoplights. Everyone knows it is faster to use the drive because there are fewer stops. There won’t be any bikes to impede traffic during the midnight hours, even in the good weather.
  
  If the city was truly intent on making this roadway a river heritage parkway as the signs imply, there would be no changes to this roadway whatsoever. All heritage properties are left in their original state. Merely maintained as is. All we ever truly need is some decent paving, curbs where required and the elimination of drop down sewers.
  
  
• Speaking of wasting money that could be better spent on other city projects...Council has received the Riverside Drive Vista Improvement Report and presumably will be mulling it over for the next 30 days. Councillor Zuk has publicly framed the discussion as one between those who want bike lanes and those who don't.
  
  Nothing could be further from the truth.
  
  Yes, there is a group of concerned Riverside residents who have met to discuss the report, but their questions are wide ranging and include the $16 million cost of these recommendations. That cost represents the tip of the iceberg. It is only the price of Phase One surface improvements and does not include things like moving or burying hydro poles which are to come in the next phase.
  
  Many Riverside residents are wondering why we can't just have our road and driveway approaches fixed instead of being subjected to a road widening so that bike lanes can be added to the road to serve the interests of a very small, and in many ways elite, group of cyclists who have their own Comittee of Council at city hall. The most irksome thing about this proposal is that there is no demand for these lanes...seeing a cyclist on Riverside Drive is a rare thing. Walkers easily outnumber cyclists ten to one, and yet council doesn't seem to waste any time worrying about the poor air quality caused by the passage of 25,000 cars a day that all walkers and joggers are subjected to on Riverside Drive.
  
  The Cycling Committee has argued that if we build lanes, cyclists will come ( the same rational that was used to justify the Canderel Building). Experience proves otherwise. There are bike lanes through to Drouillard Road and you are more likely to see cyclists riding on the sidewalk than in the bike lanes.
  
  Councillor Zuk and others still regard bike lanes as the Holy Grail of cycling, apparently not realizing that since the BUMP study was done ten years ago, different options have been proven to work better at encouraging cycling in cities. Ending subsidized parking for city hall employees and Councillors would do more to encourage cyclists than incurring the expense of bike lanes on city streets. I'm willing to bet that Windsorites would rather see this money spent on an arena or some other more pressing need.





• It is so disconcerting to see a discretionary item being pushed onto us. Most of the Residents along the Drive are vehemently opposed to this nonsense. Basically all it does, if it isn’t a hidden agenda to make 4 lanes out of this road, is to pander to a handful of pseudo Lance Armstrong who will have gotten themselves a straight racing strip from one end of Windsor to the other with no impediments.
  
  Boggles my mind how the residents here can be dismissed so casually. My goodness, think of in any other neighbourhood the residents ‘rights’ (if you will) are upheld such as when homes are near somewhere like a hospital or Arena or other such, the City will even put a sign up in the neighbourhood forbidding anyone but the residents to park on the street. Not us. We can be disregarded.

===============================================================

And the final note, an exchange of emails re bicycles on the new Bridge:

• "The bike advisory committee passed a resolution last night recommending dedicated bike lanes on a new bridge....David Wake has told me that DRIC will consider it."

• "I don’t think this goes far enough – I think multiple bike lanes will be required to accommodate NEXUS cleared bikes, non-NEXUS cleared bikes, FAST bike (i.e., bicycle messengers & couriers carrying documents for delivery), bike that stopped at the duty free store, etc. In addition, there will need to be highly specialized primary & secondary customs inspection facilities for the bikes and their potential for immigration infiltration via illegal biking operatives…" [There was more but you get the drift]