Cease And Desist Already

Why couldn't the Star reporter or Columnist give us the information rather than make us wonder and guess? Or did some editor make the decision to not reveal it?

The Star first published the story on August 6:

• "Stop spreading rumours, Jones warned by bridge
  
  Cease and desist letter issued
  
  The Ambassador Bridge company has fired a warning shot across the bow of Ward 2 Coun. Ron Jones, threatening legal action if Jones persists in spreading what the company alleges is misinformation about its practices and intentions regarding homes in the city's west side...
  
  Jones said he was unruffled by the bridge's letter."

I wonder when that letter was sent. Dan Stamper was quoted as saying it was sent some time before. If so, why was the issue just publicized now? What is about to come next so that the Bridge Company can be demonized in advance?

Here is what I find to be fascinating about the story. At no time did it ever say what was in the Bridge Company letter. Presumably it was about the Indian Road homes. But what was their complaint?

I am sure that the reporter must have seen it. How could he write a story otherwise?

Wouldn't you like to know why the Bridge Company was so angry? What did Councillor Jones say that so upset them? Was it true or not? It would have to be in the letter I am sure.

What was the Councillor's position on each of the allegations made? I would have liked to have known.

Fast forward to the column of Anne Jarvis of August 14:

• "Jones won't be silenced
  
  People in the vulnerable west side neighbourhood of Sandwich elected Coun. Ron Jones to represent them, and the Ambassador Bridge, whose plan to twin its span and cement its monopoly would devastate Sandwich, is warning him to shut up.
  
  It's a billion-dollar business empire trying to muzzle an elected representative and his community, and it's offensive."

Ahhhhhhhhh the Columnist will tell us what is in the letter. She must have read it in order to write a column about it, right. She will inform us about the Indian Road homes issue.

She writes and quotes the Councillor in the following way:

• "At a rally at the foot of the bridge in southwest Detroit two months ago, Jones told the crowd that a twin span would cut Sandwich in half "and we're not going to allow it to happen."
  
  Pretty nefarious stuff, according to the bridge. Thankfully, for the residents of Sandwich and for Windsor, Jones is doing what he was elected to do: fight for the best interests of his ward and the city.
  
  That's what the bridge doesn't like.
  
  "I think there's probably an attempt to muzzle anybody who is not going to toe the line," said Jones."

Huh? What has that got to do with what the reporter's story was about: the Bridge company's "practices and intentions regarding homes in the city's west side?" She came up with something totally different.

Was that in the letter, is that what the Bridge was complaining about according to Ms Jarvis? I would be surprised if only that was the basis of a cease and desist letter. I would suspect that there was much more.

Again, I wonder why the Columnist did not set out specifically what the complaint was. Why didn't she inform her readers? Did she actually read the letter and if so, why didn't she quote from it?

What is wrong with the Star...why are they so afraid to give people the facts? Another reason why I am glad I cancelled my subscription.

Why don't the Councillor and the Star tell us what the complaint was about so we can judge for ourselves? Why is there this silence? I am sure that the Bridge Company would give permission for the letter to be released.

I can hardly wait for the Editorial that will be written next that won't tell us about the letter either.

Perhaps in this case, the Star could cease and desist as well if they refuse to set out the details of the complaint.

Oh, by the way, Brian Masse spoke at the Detroit session too. Did he get a letter as well?