Thoughts and Opinions On Today's Important Issues

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

More Musings

A few items for you to consider.


A whole bunch of new BLOGs are starting in Windsor these days. I already told you about Kdduck Talk at This BLOG is a very political one and probably one that the Mayor and Council will pretend to ignore as they read it everyday.

Then another one started up to spread good news called interestingly enough "Good News Windsor at The creator said
  • "For the citizens of Windsor, Ontario, Canada who are inundated with cynicism and negativity surrounding their future.

    This is your pep rally Windsor. Cheer on!"

I wonder if I should take credit for some of these people starting up BLOGs about Windsor. After all I was one of the first to start up a political BLOG and now some are doing BLOGs with W's strapped to them in reaction.

Did I help create them. Am I now the BLOGfather instead of just the BLOGmeister!


Did you read the story in the Star:

  • "Animal shelter raided by city

    City bylaw inspectors assisted by Windsor police executed a search warrant at Windsor Animal Rescue Thursday to obtain blood and stool samples from all its dogs, to test for contagious viruses...

    Two police officers, two city staffers and two veterinarians arrived at the self-described no-kill animal shelter...

    "There's nothing wrong with the dogs," said an angry shelter owner Donald Lafrance...

    City staff at the scene declined comment.

    City licencing commissioner Diane Sibley confirmed the city was behind the search warrant.

    "We received a series of complaints and this is part of the investigation of those complaints," said Sibley.

    The search warrant states "there are dogs infected with parvo and/or other infectious diseases being kept at the premise noted below."

I thought that his name sounded familiar and I checked the City's Minutes. I wonder if this is the same person:

  • "Donald Lafrance, Ward 4 resident

    Donald Lafrance, Ward 4 resident, appears before Council to speak to the importance of the Ambassador Bridge to the city of Windsor, and requests that the City of Windsor attempt to build stronger relations with the Bridge officials."

I happened to notice on the City's website a banner in relation to Greenlink. Perhaps it was there before but I just noticed it on Friday.

I can hardly wait to see the advertisements and listen to the radio and TV spots and get the mailings.

Rumour has it from one insider Liberal, although denied by another, that the Province will counter any advertising by the City.

I'm not sure I believe that the Province would waste money to support the DRIC road because it has not yet been approved. More importantly, if I were our two Liberal Cabinet Ministers, I would just point out how much money the City is wasting at a time when every penny counts and how many jobs are being lost by Eddie's stalling. Anyway, reading the BLOGs and Forums, Eddie's support for anything is dissipating quickly.


It's a tossup about that Ipsos Reid poll. I have heard that it is financed by the Liberals and I've heard that it is run by the City and/or Mayor's office. Who knows what the truth is.

I believe that a Councillor should ask at Council publicly whether the poll is being run on behalf of the City or the Mayor and if so demand to see the results and to know the costs. The question though that is asked has to be carefully framed. My bet would be that if the poll is being done for Windsor, it is probably being done under the auspices of some big consulting firm probably retained by a lawyer to maintain solicitor-client privilege.

If it is done by the Liberals, would it be done by the Party itself, by a local riding association or by the Government? If it is done by the Government, is it obliged to reveal the results of the poll since it is being funded by taxpayers? I thought that was a requirement if the poll was run by the Federal Government.

I doubt if we'll ever know directly and I doubt if a Councillor will ask the question. Maybe it is the time for another Municipal Freedom of Information Application to be brought if the information is not brought forward in an open and transparent way.


As expected Maryvale had no problems getting an exemption from the Interim Control Bylaw, as it should. I am sure that the Councillors will be very merry after the Council meeting to show how they looked at this matter on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, there is nothing new. Councillors could have been just as merry before the extension of the Bylaw but they were petrified that would give the Ambassador Bridge Company an argument so they could tear down their homes on Indian Road. Now that the second year of the Bylaw has started, Councillors feel more comfortable granting exemptions since any Appeal would probably take about a year to get heard.

I'm afraid however that since Administration did not come up with the criteria for exemption as set out in Councillor Marra's amendment last week at Council, the Maryvale matter should have been deferred again until such time as the criteria were determined. Otherwise isn't this blatant favouritism that the Ambassador Bridge Company can use against the City.

Thank goodness that the Windsor Star Editorial gave permission to Councillors to grant the exemption. They can rest easy knowing now that the Star will not slam them. I thought about going through the Star Editorial to fisk it but I didn't feel like wasting my time. I just wanted to point out one section however:
  • "Clearly, the city's mission is the right one. Whether you're living in Olde Sandwich Towne or Riverside -- South Windsor or South Walkerville -- it's the responsibility of our elected leaders to attempt to keep our neighbourhoods thriving and prosperous."

I agree with that but not in the way that the Star is suggesting. It would seem to me that the Star would be doing its readers and Windsorites a favour by demanding that the Mayor and Council start talking to the Senior Levels and to the Ambassador Bridge Company before this City is devastated and it no longer has any advertisements to run in its newspaper because no one here will have any money to buy anything.

Oh well, that's a pipe dream. The Star Editorial Board seems to be so anti-Ambassador Bridge that they could never do so. It's a shame but the Star as we know is a on a mission to have a public bridge regardless of the consequences. After all:

  • "We did things that newspapers can do to bring about change, positive change."

I will just say that the last sentence of the Editorial is hilarious. It states in relation to Maryvale:

  • "it began its expansion plans in good faith and with community support, long before the bylaw went into effect."

We found out at Council that Maryvale acted in fact after the bylaw came into force but who cares right when you have exempting to do.

I guess the Star Editors forgot that the Bridge Company has spent about a half billion dollars and started its project about a decade ago. Looking at the cranes on the other side of the river, it was not kept as a big secret now was it!