Special Council Meeting

I'm surprised that the Windsor Star had a reporter at the Special Council Meeting on Friday. Perhaps I missed it but I don't recall seeing a story in the Star about the meeting in advance so that they could inform its readers about it.

I know that the Interim Control Bylaw is not that important a matter... freezing development in Sandwich for another year and putting the boots to the Ambassador Bridge Company. I guess the Star didn't want too many people knowing about it so that they could come out to the meeting. After all it was a foregone conclusion so why make people come out in such blustery weather to a Council meeting. Moreover Eddie needed time to prepare for his meeting on Saturday with the MPPs and the other County Mayors and probably wanted the meeting over very quickly. He expected the result he wanted: a one-year extension of the bylaw.

The meeting was fascinating. Congratulations to Cogeco for setting up TV coverage so quickly. Windsorites were able to see their Mayor and Council in action. Well actually only those who were not working at the time since 4 PM was still work time for most.

In spite of the fact that the Meeting was only announced late Tuesday afternoon on the City's website, over 20 delegations appeared the majority of which were going to slam the Bylaw and the effect it has on Sandwich. If you don't think that number of delegations scared that Council, then you had to be there to watch the total disorganization and disarray that Council was in. The Mayor seemed to be shellshocked and lost control of the meeting early on.

Do you wonder how so many people actually found out about it in such a short time-frame? One person wrote to me after the meeting ended and said the following so she understood:

• "So I hear that council extended the interim control for only 4 weeks because “people” were upset that the meeting was called at 4pm on a Friday with no notice. Congratulations, chalk one up for the bloggers!"

Windsor Council gadfly Les Chaif started out the meeting by being the first delegation and pitting Windsorites against the Mayor and Council. He slammed the holding of a meeting at Friday at 4 p.m. and accused Council of disenfranchising two thirds of the working people of Sandwich. That was hardly something that Councillors Jones and Postma would like very much given their strong support of Sandwich over the years.

Then the coup de grace. The lawyer of the Bridge Company walked all over the Mayor. She had a position that she was going to put forward on deferring the meeting so that Windsorites had the opportunity to present their position to Council and wasn't going to let me Mayor stop her. And Eddie tried, several times, by trying to throw her off the her train of thought and by trying to close her down. She had none of it and just kept on going until her final remarks about "bad faith" in an Interim Control Bylaw case in a Supreme Court of Canada decision.

What really shook the Mayor I believe was when he heard the lawyer state that the Bridge Company had written transcripts of what was said a year ago when the Bylaw was introduced and was able to say what several Councillors had said at that time. Now why would they have transcripts. Do you think that might mean litigation against the Mayor and the Council? Who knows.

After those two spoke, Councillor Marra jumped in and effectively prevented the Mayor from getting what he wanted. He outmanoeuvered the Mayor. His suggestion that the bylaw be extended for two weeks (eventually it was agreed until the end of February) so that the Community had the opportunity to consider the matter fully was a brilliant move on his part. He supported the Community while the Mayor was being viewed as someone who is destroying Sandwich by trying to prevent development for another year. I'm sure it won't hurt Councillor Marra when 50 delegations appear next time around.

It was so transparent that the City Hall wanted to avoid being tarred by West Enders that Administration had to put in their report the basis upon which they thought Council should grant exemptions. Of course, those exemptions are so one-sided that they just add another arrow in the quiver of the Bridge Company to show bad faith on the part of a City.

I was watching as the meeting ended to see what happened. Obviously the media flocked around Dan Stamper, the President of the Bridge Company, for comments. But it was also interesting to see how many residents of the West End came up to shake his hand. Moreover I heard a number of residents congratulate Paula Lombardi, the Bridge Company lawyer, for standing up to the Mayor and putting him in his place. As one person said, "It was time to do so."

You had to be there to feel the dynamics in the room. There was little animosity to the Bridge Company and a lot directed towards Council. That is why I found the Star article about the Special Council meeting so interesting. In a very ironic twist, it is the Bridge Company and not Council who is standing up for the residents of Sandwich!

Council's actions respecting to the Bylaw have backfired on them. Look at the headline and the comment:

• "Bylaw called threat to youth 'We have rats, drug dealers and kids,' says teen worker of west-end conditions... A city bylaw that prevents construction and demolition in Olde Sandwich Towne is endangering west-end youth, says a leader of a centre for teens."

Someone is worried. Of course, the smears are out as well. You must not support the Ambassador Bridge Company. Do not oppose our Masters or else:

• "Roy said he's even heard some accuse the Sandwich Teen Action Group of "taking money from the bridge company" -- something Roy described as a "totally reprehensible" allegation."

How about this comment:

• "Other west end residents who've had problems with the bylaw include Maryvale Adolescent and Family Services, who say the bylaw is stalling building improvements, and Sandwich Street homeowner Norm Wilson, who wants to tear down his dilapidated "eyesore" of a garage."

It was up to Dan Stamper to put it into the proper perspective

• "Ambassador Bridge president Dan Stamper, who attended Friday's meeting, said the city's bylaw has caused harm to the community around the bridge, all because council is afraid that saying 'yes' to residents would set a precedent for the bridge company.
  
  "I think that's terrible. If they want a fight with the Ambassador Bridge, they ought to fight with the Ambassador Bridge, and not ... deny this community improvements that they want to make," Stamper said."

He said on CKLW that he doesn't want anyone harmed by the City's action against the Ambassador Bridge Company. He also reminded listeners that the City-owned Tunnel was a competitor to his Company's crossing.

Do you know it will be fun to watch? In a month people will be able to organize their opposition to this ridiculous bylaw and come in hordes to the meeting. It is almost like the STOPDRTP days when citizens came out to object to the absurd position that certain people on that Council wanted to take with respect to DRTP. I think I will videotape the several hours of slamming of the Mayor and Council by residents of Sandwich who have seen their community destroyed by people who haven't got the foresight to understand what a control bylaw does.

It will be interesting to watch the Mayor squirming because we know how much he likes to be criticized and blamed. I wonder how many Points of Clarification he will raise to try and throw people off of their speeches. I hope some of them remember how Ms Lombardi ignored him when he tried to do that to her.

PS. If you want to know the height of arrogance and disdain of citizens, before the By-law was passed, Administration put the application for the Maryvale exemption from the Bylaw on the February 4, 2008 Council Agenda. I guess Administration must be using the services of City Hall's psychic consultant too since the y knew it was going to be extended.