Gazelles, Politico bureaucrati and other particulate matter

I figure after weeks of serious blogs, it was time to lighten things up.

You see, Windsor is facing, I fear, a very serious problem. Our Economic Development Commissioner is hoping, by watering and nurturing our economic gardens, herds of gazelles will ultimately call Windsor home. Gord Henderson today also is advocating that the species known as politico bureaucratis be herded to Windsor to take advantage of the future abundance of said gardens. An additional issue is that economic gardens also attract commercialia bovinae which are grain-fed through public subsidy.

The problem is however, these species are known for emitting Nitrogen Dioxide (N2O) and Methane through the decomposition of Fine-Particulate Matter (PM). This is of grave concern, considering that in Toronto and Ottawa for example, of lot of this Fine-Particulate Matter is emitted daily, notably during Question Period.

What is the effect of this? Well I turned to the expert on politico bureaucratis, and arguably, commercialia bovinae, Republican House Representative, Dana Rohrabacher (apparently a mass producer of particulate matter) for his paleotologic analysis of the problem of fine-particulate matter and other emissions during the cretaceous period:

My oh my, whatever will we do? Scientists today have sounded the warning in their 400 page report regarding bovine particulate matter entitled, “Livestocks Long Shadow” so this is why I fear what our economic gardens will do. Economic gardens to the south and west of us are already blowing particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide our way. In fact, over 18 tonnes of methane gas and .25 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide are produced per year. A good stiff wind from the south or west blows it all our way. (Figures for Ottawa and Toronto are not available at time of printing).

God forbid the gazelles, or the politico bureaucratis stop by Taco Bell for a little grazing - particulate matter and methane gas levels could go through the roof!

So there is only one solution to this very serious problem. If we’re going to build economic gardens, we must build tunnels to herd the politico bureaucratis, commercialia bovinae and gazelles through. Then, we could export all the particulate matter to Dalton McGuinty’s proposed incinerators (which can be scrubbed, thanks Gord Henderson for that column). With all that dung we could probably create enough energy (and hot air) to power Ontario!

Speaking of particulate matter…

It seems our own city hall is producing its own fair share. When does “creating” become “consolidation?” Why, when we’re talking about the proposed Ministry of Propaganda, er, Communications Department at City Hall.

As a communications student, I realise the importance of effective communication of public policy. However, as a human being, I also realise the importance of the health of our community in hard economic times. But I can see the greater importance of a communications department over job training and counselling for the hard-to-employ.

I sent off another shirt to the dry cleaners today (that’s it, I’m done with coffee!) after reading our Mayor’s doublespeak today:

“What we’re going to do is ensure every tax dollar that we take in is going to be efficiently spent,” Francis said. “It’s going to allow us to better streamline our services.”

He preceded this with, “An example of where efficiencies can be achieved is in communications, where there are many departments and agencies that provide a communication component to the public. The city has two communications officers, and the police, Enwin and the public library each have their own. That can be consolidated into one department.”

What we’re going to do? Do you mean to tell Windsorites that for the past 4 years that is something you haven’t done? Oh right, I forgot - the arena, the cost overuns on streetscaping, bus terminal, Peace Beacon, Huron Lodge. Now that those messes are out of the way, we’re going to become efficient. But don’t worry - this won’t affect taxpayers, according to our finance department. Nevermind the fact that these unexpected costs add to the expense line, and take away from the revenue. Heck, the $5 million in “bridge-financing” charges added about 1% to the tax bill.

Small question, will this “consolidation” amount to costing an additional $300,000 this year and what would it cost per year thereafter? After-all, if we consolidate, we need to buy new office furniture, computer equipment, hire a Communications Adminstrator and/or Director, and/or Manager and/or those two other officers, pay the movers, and have another mouth to feed at those in-camera council meetings?

Maybe the city really does need a communications department. Good grief.

I don’t care how much it costs - build those tunnels now!

The Star ‘bringing about change”

“We did things that newspapers can do to bring about change…” (Marty Beneteau, April 18th, 2006).

With this in mind, I still couldn’t control the spray of my morning coffee when I read, “Keep bridges apart, report urges” by David Battagello. Is the Star indirectly advocating the construction of additional separate bridges in Sarnia and Fort Erie?

“The committee Tuesday released its latest findings and recommendations to improve border security. Much of the 67-page report was focused on the vulnerability of Windsor’s bridge and tunnel — North America’s busiest trade corridor,” according to Battagello.

Well, not quite. The Ottawa Citizen, in their one paragraph story had the coverage correct:

“Canada’s border officers act too much like tax collectors and not enough like security guards, according to a Senate report on security at land crossings released yesterday. In its third report on border security in a week, the standing Senate committee on national security and defence was again critical of the federal government for not acting with a sense of urgency to improve security.”

Keeping the bridges apart was one problem of many cited in the 144 page report (page 62):

“The Committee recommended that only those proposals for new crossing infrastructure at Windsor-Detroit which provide separate and secure infrastructure redundancy be considered…It is a major consideration for the Committee, so we were heartened to see that the proposed options of increasing capacity by widening the Windsor-Detroit tunnel or twinning the Ambassador Bridge were rejected. Good.”

The rest of the report discussed reverse customs and a host of other security problems at all of Canada’s border crossings - not just Windsor as the Star leads us to believe.

If you recall yesterday’s blog about the Peace Bridge expansion project, documents on the website contained references to a private developer wanting to build another bridge down river from the Peace Bridge.

I believe this Senate Report indirectly supports this private developer’s project as it would provide the “separate and secure infrastrucutre redundancy” required . Surely the twinned Peace Bridge Public Authority’s bridge is a security threat. Afterall, we have to keep the bridges apart! In fact, does this report suggest that the twinned bridge in Sarnia should have “separate and secure” redundancy as well? This is, afterall, the justification for building a third crossing here in Windsor and opposing the replacement of the Ambassador Bridge.

Some other interesting excerpts from the report:

“Furthermore, the Detroit-Windsor tunnel and the Ambassador are too critical to the economies of Canada and the United States to allow terrorists any advantage if they are targeted. For that reason both of these crossings should be retrofitted for reverse inspections.“

So the Senate is calling for reverse customs at the tunnel - and it appears the Government of Canada is in agreement, not for the bridge, but for the tunnel:

“Canada has maintained that it is willing to consider reverse inspection at certain crossings where this makes sense. However, it would not be recommended for the Peace Bridge, the Thousand Islands Bridge or the Ambassador Bridge unless the current geographical constraints at these crossings are addressed (page 56).”

Mmmm, no mention of the tunnel. However, there are definitely “geographical contraints” at the city-owned tunnel, so I wonder what is going to have to be torn down to pave the way for this?

“The bottom line is that we need personnel, technology and systems that will give customs officers enough information to be able to say “yes” or “no” as to whether someone passes, or is relegated to secondary inspection for further examination (page 22).”

Wow! Isn’t that what Bernadette Secco was advocating all those years ago when she stated the solution was to hire more staff? Isn’t that what the Ambassador Bridge company has been saying all along and have proven demonstratively that it works?

Too many questions. I guess that is why the Star reported the story in the way that it did - ignoring the issues surrounding our city-owned tunnel and contradictions regarding redundancy, but focussing the attention on one sentence of the report.

If they keep this up, I’m going to have to send them my dry-cleaning bill or I’ll have to stop drinking coffee.

Déjà-vu? The Peace Bridge Expansion Project

If the Peace Bridge Expansion Project is any indication of things to come for Windsor, we will not be seeing any new crossing built here for some time. But before I get into that, Bernadette Secco, Executive Director of the Fresh Air Coalition, had a novel concept in her presentation to Fort Erie Town Council regarding the Peace Bridge:

“Ms. Secco advised the PBA plans to build 7 inspection booths to reduce truck queuing. Fresh Air Coalition does not support these plans because the 7 inspection booths in Sarnia processing approximately 800 more trucks per day has not solved their truck queuing problems.

Ms. Secco advised the OCC report states “The primary cause of backups according to one study is the lack of staffing and availability of customs booths”. She suggested additional personnel be hired and trained to work in these inspection booths if the expansion plans are going to work.”

Gee, where have we heard this before? Why here of course - in my blog “A Tale of Two Cities: Sarnia and Windsor.” In the Province of Ontario’s Air Quality Assessment Study, the province concluded that heightened security increased border delays, despite having two bridges.

At the Ambassador Bridge here in Windsor, since governments finally placed more customs agents in the bridge company’s expanded booths, truck line-ups on Huron Church have become a thing of the past - except when there is heightened security at the border. The same applies to the city-owned tunnel. Except in the tunnel communters are now hidden, I mean queued underground where exhaust is pumped out of a ventilation tower which allegedly does not scrub emissions (shown below).

So wouldn’t Ms. Secco’s suggestion of adding additional staff and booths eliminate traffic back-ups here? The Ambassador Bridge has already demonstrated what adding a few would do - imagine what doubling the booths on the US side, or tripling or adding, say 200 additional booths, fully staffed would do?

Wouldn’t this simple solution be much more efficient than fighting the potential battles here in Windsor that halted the Peace Bridge expansion back in 1999? What if we also did what they have agreed to do at the Peace Bridge and shifted inspection to the US side where they have more room to expand?

The similarities between the Peace Bridge Expansion Project and our border experience are uncanny - you can read about them all here. I do have to say, that for some to criticise the Ambassador Bridge’s actions as “not very professional” (Windsor Star, March 16th) should really check out how the Peace Bridge Public Authority conducted itself - that same public authority that our own NDP MP Brian Masse is proposing for Windsor. (For more on the actions of public authorities go to Windsor City Blog, Brian Masse and Public Authorities).

It really makes me wonder when an environmentalist in Fort Erie advocates for the very actions that the Ambassador Bridge has already undertaken and plans to implement further.

But I’m quickly learning that the solution that makes the most sense, is the solution that gets ignored.

Budget cuts and the elephant in the room

Some things completely baffle me. Take for example the public outcry over $35,000 for meals for councillors and administration during meetings. Sure, cutting this would be symbolic when compared say next to that $65-million and counting east-side arena. It would seem some, such as Councillor Brister, think the meals are an inappropriate use of tax dollars, but he has no problem seeing through funding of a project that the city originally only budgeted $15 million for, grow to over $65-million - defending the expenditure for “a premier facility in this city”.

Had we chosen the public/private partnership, we would have freed up to $5 million immediately in “bridge-financing” charges, not to mention an additional $35 million (excluding the original $15-million budgeted) for future tax relief, or funding for the arts, or sidewalk maintenance and repair or creating economic incentive packages for our economic gardens that our gazelles could munch on.

No one blinks an eye considering our mayor in his 2003 election campaign advocated for a public-private partnership to build our arena, “a public/private partnership is the key to our arena’s ongoing success and viability. Council has already allocated the required money and land for this project we need to aggressively seek a partner.”

But not a word from Councillor Brister or any other critic of the $35,000 meal plan.

On the topic of arenas…

A reader sent the following economic impact report regarding the Oshawa Generals new OHL arena in downtown Oshawa. You really have to wonder where Ward 2 councillors Jones and Postma were in fighting to locate this potential windfall to our downtown core. A key argument by Hemson Consulting was (page 8):

“The location of the new facility would be very accessible by either car or transit. The site is serviced by Oshawa Transit. The site is also less than a 10 minute walk from the downtown GO Transit bus terminal. The site has approximately 1,980 parking spaces within a five minute walking distance and approximately 4,291 parking spaces within a ten minute walking distance.”

One of the key arguments I heard against the arena being located near downtown Windsor was that of parking. However, this report (I wish I had it on October 4th, 2006) demonstrates that our own city and privately run parking lots downtown could handle the volume, and we would not have had to negotiate 5 cent parking to attract The Keg downtown either (page 19):

“However, experience elsewhere suggests the opposite since the provision of parking around a facility tends to isolate it from its neighbourhood and decreases the likelihood that attendees will remain in the area after an event. In contrast, parking offsite forces patrons to walk through a downtown area in turn creating potential customers for local businesses.”

The report concluded:

“The key findings of our analysis are that Oshawa, and in particular the downtown core, would receive direct net benefits from the proposed new arena as a result of the projected expenditures by attendees at events. The OSEC also has the potential to induce additional investment and ongoing expenditures in the downtown core because of the focus and interest that it would attract.”

The five case studies of recently built sports and entertainment facilities provide a number key lessons:

• New facilities can have a significant economic impact on a downtown area particularly if they are part of a comprehensive revitalization plan that includes other public and private sector investment.
• A new facility should be developed in or as close to the downtown if impacts are to be maximized;
• Food and beverage establishments and parking facilities are the major beneficiaries from a new facility and, as might be expected, mainly on event days;
• The presence of a new facility is not sufficient in and of itself for success. Strong management and promotional activities are also very important;
• One of the most important impacts of a new facility is the improved image and increased sense of civic pride that occurs.

The revitalisation strategy of Oshawa is profound:

“The sale of the Genosha - a blight on the city’s downtown for years - the new arena, the Regent Theatre development and the courthouse announcement have all been major contributors to Oshawa’s renaissance, she said.”

What do we do in Windsor? Shut down the Capitol Theatre, build the arena on the outer fringes of the city, and continue to peddle the bus terminal and the “Urban Village” as the saviour for downtown (with no RFP’s, and a two year extension from one year to three for Fahri Holdings to develop 1 acre of the “blight on the city’s downtown” Western Super Anchor Site).

The question that remains, will the Casino expansion really benefit the downtown, moreso than creating a dynamic synergy between a downtown arena AND casino? The jury’s out on that one…in the meantime our councillors fret over a $35,000 food bill.

Also on the topic of arena’s, the Oshawa Arena, named the “General Motors Centre” (It’s really unfortunate that our relationship with the Ambassador Bridge Company is so sour - we could’ve approached them for naming rights, such as the Canadian Transit Centre, to recover some of the costs), struck a deal with Sony to provide a state-of-the-art sound and video system which, according to the story, will give, “fans the ultimate game experience, using live content such as interviews as well as replays of the action. And of course, another important consideration was the ability to present commercial ads and maximize sponsorship opportunities.”

Councillor Brister, will we be giving fans, “the ultimate game experience” in our “premier facility?”

I sure hope so given the price-tag.

Henderson’s column, “fishy” and the “fishy” Ontario budget

What an interesting column in Saturday’s paper by Gord Henderson. First, the former DRTP mouthpiece, Jeff Watson, wins Henderson’s praise for single-handedly “producing real money, and lots of it” regarding the federal government’s $400-million allocation for the Windsor Gateway border crossing project.

Funny how the backbench MP accomplished that. I did a search of the Hansard, and the only reference to federal funding for the border crossing to come out of Watson’s mouth was on April 28, 2006:

“I am also convinced that when the time comes, the federal government, in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, is going to come through with the necessary long range funding to ensure that infrastructure goes forward in this corridor. I am very confident of that. I am pleased to be working with this minister on these projects.”

Now these don’t appear to be the words of an MP “in-the-know”, and surely not the words of an MP who was fighting for Federal dollars, which quite frankly would have come to Windsor even if the Communist Party of Canada was representing the Rose City.

So Gord Henderson’s column was very interesting in what he didn’t comment on. He didn’t comment on Mayor Eddie Francis’ complete lack of opinion on the provincial budget. Our Mayor absolutely gushed over the Conservative government’s budget, despite it’s vagueness, “This has been identified with dollars attached to it instead of a casual reference,” he said. “Instead of just talking about it, they have clearly identified it as a line item.”

So I guess the province’s $6 billion infrastructure budget that doesn’t identify Windsor as “a line item” goes without comment by our Mayor?

Something’s fishy. Heaps of praise for a backbench Conservative MP, for $400 million dollars towards an access road that the MP quite frankly and little to nothing to do with attracting, but not a word from our Mayor with regards to the province? Gord Henderson is clearly up to something, and knows more, I think than he is letting on.

Update:  I admit, I was tired when I wrote this piece, thanks to Vincent Clement who pointed out my “folly”.  It would appear, the Province of Ontario has a contingency fund, and in conjunction with the sale of shares in Teranet, have been able to post a surplus - though this begs the question for the future, and I still question future surpluses as expressed by the Minister.

Speaking of fishy…

Perhaps an accounting wizard could explain this one to me. On February 17, 2007, the province’s finance department had this to say:

• The current outlook for 2006-07 forecasts a deficit of $1.9 billion, or $0.9 billion if the reserve is not required. This represents an improvement of $0.4 billion from the 2006 Budget forecast, and is consistent with the projection reported in the Q1 Finances and the 2006 Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review.

• The Province’s medium-term fiscal outlook projects deficits of $2.2 billion in 2007-08 and $1.0 billion in 2008-09, including a $1.5 billion reserve in both years.

Now I’m confused. Because the Finance Minister’s budget speech said this:

“Today we table a balanced budget. We have made progress in each year. For the year just ending, we now anticipate a surplus of $310 million. For 2007–08, we project a surplus if, as we expect, the reserve is not required. In 2008–09 and 2009–10, we are planning for surpluses, even after providing for healthy reserves. Indeed, our government is on track to post five consecutive surpluses.”

Mmmm. Just one month ago, we were anticipating a $1.9 billion dollar short-fall, and suddenly in those few short weeks, we found $2.1 $2.2 billion? Who the heck is cooking keeping the books for Ontario to “find” $2.1 $2.2 billion in a matter of weeks?

Will they come over to my home and do my books?

So, I’m just curious, does our Finance Minister, talk to the Finance Department?

P3 Border crossing - a means to the end of the Ambassador Bridge?

“The case studies indicate that the potential benefits of P3s are often outweighed by high contracting costs and opportunism. These costs are particularly high when construction or operating complexity is high, revenue uncertainty (use risk) is high, both of these risks have been transferred to the private sector partner, and contract management effectiveness is poor. In infrastructure projects it rarely makes sense to try to transfer large amounts of use risk to the private sector.”

So claim Aiden Vining of the Faculty of Business, Simon Fraser University and Anthony Boardman of the Sauder School of Business in a draft study of P3’s in Canada funded by Infrastructure Canada.

We remember Conservative Transport Canada Minister Lawrence Cannon said, “I can tell you today, the Government of Canada intends to partner with the private sector for design, financing, construction, and operation of this crossing.” Even Transport Canada’s website lauds the “efficiency” and “value” of P3’s to the “transportation commuter,” citing the success of the Confederation Bridge in P.E.I. and Highway 407 in Ontario.

Contrast this enthusiasm to what former Ontario Transportation Minister Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, David Caplan had to say about Ontario’s experiment with P3’s and infrastructure:

“Highway 407 was a project that was not delivered in a principled way. It didn’t just violate one of our underlying principles…it basically violated all of them. It wasn’t in the public interest. The 99 year-lease effectively transfers ownership, and control, out of public hands. There was no accountability. Value for money was a joke, and as for transparency…as for the people of Ontario knowing what kind of deal had been struck…well, need I say anything more?”

What did the study conclude regarding Highway 407 and the Confederation Bridge? Well, first, the critique claims, “Private sector participants wish to maximize profits over the contract period” (p. 12). Furthermore, “private sector participants are risk-adjusted profit maximizers, so that they are willing to forego some expected profits if they can reduce risk sufficiently.” The study warns that “mixed enterprises (firms that are jointly owned by private shareholders and government) can result in “the worst of both worlds”, achieving neither high profitability nor worthwhile social goal” (p. 15).

So what about the successful Confederation Bridge P3 (p. 19-20):

“The major problem with describing this P3 as a success is that the bonds were guaranteed by the federal government and thus there was no net reduction in risk exposure relative to on-budget financing (Receiver General for Canada, 1995). It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the P3 was chosen primarily to achieve off-balance sheet financing.”

What about the 407 ETR (p. 20-21)?

“The major weakness of 407 as a P3 was the failure of the government to effectively transfer financing risks…The 407 operator, not surprisingly, has been interested in maximizing profits rather than optimizing metropolitan Toronto traffic flows…Those who focus on the lack of risk transfer, such as Bose (1993), regard it as a P3 failure. Mylvaganam and Borins (2004), more charitably, present a mixed assessment.”

“Since 1999, tolls have been raised six times and in 2004 the consortium announced that it intended to raise tolls again, claiming it was losing money (Mackie, 2004). The toll increases dampened 407 demand, leading to congestion on adjacent roads.”

So where am I going with this? Vincent Clement commented that my assertation that a P3 could result in a NAFTA challenge was a “red herring.” Section 1103-05 of NAFTA states:

“Article 1103: Most-Favored-Nation Treatment

1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of any other Party or of a non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.

2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of investors of any other Party or of a nonParty with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.”

Well based upon the UBC P3 study, what would the risk to a private investor (or public) be in the operation of the new border crossing? Well, one such risk is toll revenue guarantees. The major difference between the 407 ETR and the Confederation Bridge is that in Windsor there is direct competition from a private investor already - the Ambassador Bridge. Therefore, toll revenues would be affected accordingly with the introduction of another private operator (or public for that matter).

So, the question is, how do you minimise risk to the P3 partner, or a publically owned and operated facility? You would have to either divert truck traffic (expropriate) to the new crossing and/or guarantee toll revenue as they do for the Confederation Bridge.

Except there is one small problem - the Ambassador Bridge and its American parent company.

Should the government engage in any of the above activities, I’m almost certain that would violate the Most Favored [sic] Nation clause of NAFTA. Whether or not a NAFTA challenge would be successful, it is still a challenge that could potentially shut down any border development for years and cost tens of millions of dollars in legal fees defending.

Could this explain the silence of Ron Jones, Mayor Francis, Minister Lawrence Cannon et al regarding the bridge company? Are they so silent because they anticipate that the Ambassador Bridge Company will either sell or cease to exist because they intend to “starve” it of revenue?

What a gamble on the economic future of Windsor.

By the way, the study concluded:

“Our analysis of the Canadian P3 evidence indicates that the willingness of private sector firms to bear user risk declines with the level of user risk” and that “governments have not been particularly successful at shifting risk to private sector partners. Nor is it surprising that contract negotiations associated with attempts to shift risk were extremely costly. Thus, we suggest limiting the scope of future P3 contracts.“

I pose those questions for discussion. Based upon the P3 report, I find the pursuit of a P3 operation perplexing given the evidence. More on this on Monday.

Blog Shorts - Caroline Postma, Dennis DesRosiers and Brenda Andreatta

A few stories of interest today - budget discussions, Dennis DesRosier’s front page story, and a follow-up story regarding my question to city hall administrators.

Caroline Postma, what happened?

Ricky Ricardo, in an I Love Lucy epidsode said, “Lucy, you got some ’splainin to do!” aptly applies to Councillor Postma’s latest hand wringing in the Windsor Star when she said budget deliberations felt like she’d been through two rounds in a boxing ring.

Whatever did the dear councillor expect? Was it not this very councillor who stated during the election that the arena construction would not affect taxpayers? I guess that statement went flying out the window along with every other election promise including reducing the debt (which increases, as I warned in October by over $40 million this year). Decrying the $74,500 cut to social services job training, Councillor Postma had no difficulty shooting down Dave Brister’s suggestion about deducting their evening chow at council meetings from their pay to save $35,000 a year.

Also, what about Councillor Postma’s promise during the election to look at implementing free transit service for seniors, as she stated she would at the Senior’s Centre debate last October? And speaking of transit, why is the budget being cut 3%? Doesn’t Councillor Postma sit on the board for Windsor Transit? Why is Councillor Postma not asking some very serious questions? See, the City of Windsor will receive this year approximately $4.1 million in additional funding to be directed to transit services through the province’s gas tax funding, as outlined in the Transit Ridership Growth and Asset Management Plan commencing this year:

“The City will utilize its share of the provincial gas tax funding, estimated to be $4.1 million annually commencing in 2007, the Ontario Transit Vehicle Program (OTVP) which funds 1/3 the cost of transit vehicles as well as municipal funds to fund the Ridership Growth and Asset Management Plan. 50% of the Gas Tax funding would be applied to the operating costs and the remainder against the capital expenditures as per MTO guidelines. The resulting net operating cost to the municipality would increase from $8,887,000 to $10,482,000 over the 5-year period.

So, let me get this straight…the province kicks in $4.1 million more to transit, and the city CUTS the transit budget? So much for fighting for our low income families and seniors who use transit service.

I guess eating ribs courtesy of taxpayers is far more important.

Gas tax increase ludicrous

I could see Dennis DesRosier’s point but he lost me when he said that rather than taxing gas guzzling vehicles, the government should have raised gasoline taxes:

“DesRosiers called the new tax structure “politically motivated” and unworkable. And he accused the government of being “stupid, senseless (and) cowardly” to force automakers to implement the green policies, rather than just raise gasoline taxes. “

Raising gasoline taxes, in a period of already high gasoline prices would send negative shock waves through the entire economy - and all consumers would pay. Look what happened when gasoline climbed to $1.20 per litre - the cost of doing business across the board increased. Furthermore, why should I, as a non-driver, or environmentally conscience consumers for that matter, subsidize a suburbanite driving an SUV by choice through higher prices on food, and clothing as a result of increased transportation costs?

My belief is this gas guzzling tax will incite the big three to develop more fuel efficient models - and fast. Frankly, it is not my fault the big three have responded sluggishly to consumer demands - which could explain partially the increase in market share by Japanese automakers. Hopefully, this “kick in the teeth” will spur further research and development into alternative fuels, more energy efficient automobiles and fuel cell development.

This carrot approach to environmental improvement is exactly what is needed.

Brenda Andreatta Responds

On Wednesday, March 14th, 2007 I sent the following email (regarding the Capitol Theatre motion of January 29th) to both Brenda Andreatta and John Skorobohacz, in a follow-up to her response to my queries outlined in this blog:

“An entire section of the motion was dropped [motion repeated]…The entire meaning of the motion is now changed, please explain how this is a “minor clerical, typographical or grammatical” correction?

Additionally, was council notified of this change?

Thank you for your time.”

Her response:

” “

That’s right - there is nothing to read, because neither the CAO or Ms. Andreatta bothered to respond. In fact, I emailed Councillor Dilkens and Halberstadt, asking if they had been notified and the only one who responded was Councillor Dilkens (he didn’t answer the question though).

But at least he had the courtesy to respond unlike the other councillor and taxpayer paid employees of the city.

The subterfuge of political rhetoric

Ah yes, nothing much has changed in the 3 days I was buried in text books. Apparently, the Ambassador Bridge Company released it’s latest arsenal in this alleged war we are having with them. Heck, Ron Jones even has the war lingo down when he described the company’s extraneous efforts to mislead the public regarding their project as “subterfuge.” In case anyone was wondering, as was I, subterfuge is defined as a recognised skill in a situation of war to take advantage of an opponent.

I cannot believe the audacity of the bridge company in demonstrating to the public how little the replacement project will impact the city, over and above the demonstrated impact today. Oh, and while we’re on the topic of subterfuge, perhaps Councillor Jones could explain exactly what the City of Windsor’s position on an access road to the Ambassador Bridge is - I’ll give you a big hint - it’s in a report entitled, “WALTS”. Instead of “watching” the bridge company, I would suggest some light reading.

Regardless of whether or not the bridge company proceeds with the replacement project - as Councillor Dilkens pointed out, we still need to address the issues surrounding Huron Church Road, or would Ron Jones rather not discuss this issue?

And speaking of subterfuge, our dear MP Brian Masse, is at it again today when he warned that a public-private partnership will result in higher tolls at the proposed new crossing - well he’s right on that account. However, one silly little question I have for our MP - what toll rate would Masse recommend for a totally publically owned crossing?

I’ve been doing some basic math (geez, there I go thinking again). Let’s use some basic assumptions that being that 10,000 trucks a day cross the bridge both ways. Based upon the Ambassador Bridge’s number, 9.25 million vehicles crossed the bridge in 2006, which equates to approximately 24,000 vehicles a day. So, 14,000 automobiles and 10,000 trucks cross the bridge on average per day.

Now, a round trip automobile toll for the Ambassador Bridge would be about $8.00, or about $112,000 per day or $40.8 million a year. For trucks, I would be guessing a round trip cost would be approximately $40 in tolls or $400,000 a day or $146 million a year for a grand total of about $186 million in total toll revenue. Now I’ve heard several different numbers as to the profit of the Ambassador Bridge, so I’m going estimate $50 million which would equal approximately, $130 million in annual costs to operate the bridge.

So, let’s assume the 3rd crossing gets built with these numbers in mind. Let’s even further assume (though not at all likely) that the bridge company would agree to a 50/50 split in traffic. We’ve been told that the cost of the new plaza and bridge could amount to over $2 billion, I’m thinking higher, but let’s go with that number. So, using the above numbers, to maintain tolls at the above rates in today’s dollars would take about 80 years to break-even on a new publically funded bridge. And this does not include the cost of operating it! This also assumes that wage increases do not exceed the inflation rate and barring any major structural repairs during those 80 years and interest rates (you know the cost of borrowing $2-billion is not cheap) remain stable, and that traffic volumes do not continue to decline. We could be talking over 100 years to see profitability.

Well, this is not acceptable in my opinion, and for a public-private partnership to be successful, I’m thinking a private company would want to realise a real return quite quickly. In order for this to happen, let’s say 20 years, tolls would have to increase by 400%, to about $16 for automobiles and $80 for trucks, roundtrip. Even if traffic increased at a rate of 1% a year, tolls would have to be higher to see a return.

For a publically funded bridge, I’m guessing Brian Masse is suggesting that taxpayers subsidize further the cost ($10’s of millions of dollars) of keeping tolls competitive with the tunnel and the Ambassador Bridge, which takes vital tax dollars away from say, economic development, health care, home care, day care, or a national pharma program.

Now my numbers may be off (I didn’t calculate rising traffic volumes of say even 1% a year) but I think you get my point. Wise use of tax dollars would suggest that a public-private partnership would not work in this case, unless of course, we’re talking subsidies to a private company (eh hem…NAFTA challenge anyone?), and a publically funded third crossing would mean taxpayers forking over serious cash on an annual basis that could be better used to reduce income taxes, reduce our national debt or invest in research and development or higher education.

The fiscally and socially responsible alternative is so frustratingly simple: negotiate, and negotiate hard with the Ambassador Bridge Company.

Subterfuge - good word! Thanks Ron Jones.

Show me ‘da money and DRIC Air Quality Results released

Notice: Because I have to submit my proposal to my Communications Studies professor, there will no blog entries for March 19 & 20th. I will resume posting on the 21st. In the meantime be sure to check out the linked blogs under “Blog Roll” for various perspectives.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I’m really dissapointed in Dave Battagello - his reporting on the border file has been quite exhaustive and investigative. From tunnels to standing up for Windsor against the Ambassador Bridge Company his coverage has been “extra-ordinary” (or extraneous?). Nothing gets in the way of a good story - including those pesky “facts.”

In yet another story that shows just who is boss on the border file, we learn that Representative Steve Tobocman (Brian Masse’s doppelganger) will be reintroducing House Bill 4867 - “calling for the formation of a Michigan Border Development and Protection Authority.”

According to Tobocman, “the proposed border authority would issue annual operating permits to border crossings, regulate tolls and oversee planning and security issues.

Tobocman’s goal for the commission is to take better economic advantage of the huge volume of transportation and trade that rolls through the WindsorDetroit corridor. This is part of a larger package of what we are doing statewide,” he said. “You will see (the border legislation) as part of our overall economic development strategy.”

Except one small, itty bitty question - is this constitutional? Is this the reason why Republicans, “stalled” his bill two years ago? Well, I got curious (I really hate when that happens) and looked up the U.S. constitution and found Article 1, Section 8, which states, among other things that congress is empowered, “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

Well that doesn’t say much about international bridges now, and then I remembered the Bridge Company had to seek a Presidential Permit to construct their bridge and I found this:

“Executive Order 11423 of August 16, 1968 (33 Fed. Reg. 11741) states that “…the proper conduct of the foreign relations of the United States requires that executive permission be obtained for the construction and maintenance at the borders of the United States of facilities connecting the United States with a foreign country.” Such permission is conveyed via a Presidential Permit. Permits are required for “the full range of facilities” on the border, including, inter alia, bridges, pipelines, tunnels, conveyor belts and tramways.”

And then I found this little tid-bit of information entitled, the International Bridges Act, 1972 which basically states that authority to approve tolls, construction and maintenance of international bridges lay with congress vis a vis the United States Coast Guard.

So essentially, in my opinion, Tobocman’s bill is a futile attempt for the State of Michigan (read grandstanding) to take advantage (cash in on) the tolls collected at all international bridges, and gives state oversight of international crossings (simply ‘watch’). However, my reading of the legislation is that since Congress gives the authority any attempts to collect a share of said tolls or regulate commerce (requiring operational permits) could be deemed unconstitutional.

Oh, but those are just pesky little facts, much like the fact that tunnel ventilation systems in North America, do not scrub emissions or that scrubbers have yet to be successfully proven to work. But gee, it makes a great story to distract the masses and demonstrate how hard our representatives are working.

DRIC First Quarter Air Quality Assessment Released

You know, I need a life - who else reads the Detroit River International Crossing Study website regularly - geez, I must be a lonely blogger indeed!

However, the first quarter air quality results measuring fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide levels along the Huron Church corrider are posted. The first quarter conclusions:

• There were no exceedances of the MOE AAQCs (1-hr and 24-hr) for NOx at either station during the first quarter of sampling;
• There was no exceedance of the guideline levels for either of the VOCs (acrolein, benzene) that were included in the monitoring program at any point during the first quarter of sampling;
• There were no exceedances of either of the MOE AAQCs for aldehydes
  (acetaldehyde, formaldehyde) that were included in the monitoring program at any
  point during the first quarter of sampling;
• Exceedances of the proposed Canada Wide Standard (24-hr) for PM2.5 were noted at each station (13 at OPHL and 8 at St. Clair College). These may be attributed to any number of local or transboundary sources. The results of the air dispersion modelling which is currently underway will clarify the actual impact of traffic on local concentrations.

But guaranteed, Gord Henderson and/or Dave Battagello and/or Brian Masse and/or Ron Jones and/or Mayor Eddie Francis will turn these results into justification for a tunnel. I’m sure they’ll claim that DRIC is manipulating the numbers and cry out that Windsor deserves “only the best”.

And just to prove how lonely a blogger I really am, I’m going to cross reference the weather data provided with emission levels to see if having a south or west wind increased the levels detected or not. I’m also curious to see if higher humidity and province wide smog alerts were contributing factors. Basically, I want to see for myself if trucks or pollution from other sources (i.e. the US) is responsible for the elevations that were recorded.

But first, I have to complete my proposal….so see you on Wednesday.

Mayor and council expenses disclosed & Capitol Resolution

It would appear that pressure to make City Hall more transparent is beginning to work - I received two reports (linked below) without having to ask for them via a Freedom of Information request. Now, having said that, the reports do not appear to breakdown the expenses, but I did not really ask for that. If you recall my request was for:

“…all personal mayoral expenses, including all expenses payable by the Mayor’s office as a whole. I would like to see an itemized list of these expenses from the beginning of fiscal year 2005 to the present. Itemized expenses include, but are not limited to, legal, communication, travel, hospitality, office supplies, consultants and any and all expenses incurred by the Mayor’s Office, and its staff.”

The Mayor’s office had expenses totalling $588,801 for 2006, up from $567,119 in 2005 but under the budgeted amount of $613,639.

Councillor’s and Mayoral travel expenses totalled $35,958 for 2005, including the Mayor’s $12,043 in travel expenditures. 2006 figures will be released to council, according to Mr. Collucci, in the next month.

Now I have no comments on the expenditures claimed at this time, but I do have some questions regarding travel expenses, which I sent back to Mr. Collucci, if they included lodging, dining, and other incidentals - I’ll keep you posted on that. Additionally, the Mayor’s expenses are not broken down, but again, I did not ask for this and have asked for this information.

Truth be told, I’m pleasantly surprised to receive this information so quickly. What I truly would like to see is this information posted on the City’s website, in a place easily accessbile, such as the Civic Corner, or City Financial Documents, as they do in Halifax and Toronto - but hey, one step at a time.

Do you see a difference?

January 29th, 2007, city council passed the following motion (note the bolded sections):

“That City Council ACCEPT the transfer of the operating entity known as the Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre (Windsor) along with the transfer of all capital and current assets of the organization to the City of Windsor for the purpose of preserving this community cultural asset; and

That the Chief Administrative Officer BE DIRECTED to work with the current Board and staff of the Capitol to bring about an orderly transition and dissolution of the operation with full disclosure to the Chief Administrative Officer; and further,

That the Chief Administrative Officer BE DIRECTED to perform due diligence on behalf of the City and bring back a report to Council regarding costs associated with the facility, options for it’s future use, as well as suggestions for a new Board, with input from the Arts Council Windsor & Region and the various Theatre/Artists groups who utilize the facility.”

Now note the “updated” motion:

“That City Council ACCEPT the transfer of the operating entity known as the Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre (Windsor) along with the transfer of all capital and current assets of the organization to the City of Windsor for the purpose of preserving this community cultural asset; and

That the Chief Administrative Officer BE DIRECTED to work with the current Board and staff of the Capitol to bring about an orderly transition and √dissolution of the operation with full √ √that the Board provide full√ disclosure to the Chief Administrative Officer; and further,

That the Chief Administrative Officer BE DIRECTED to perform due diligence on behalf of the City and bring back a report to Council regarding costs associated with the facility, options for it’s future use, as well as suggestions for a new Board, with input from the Arts Council Windsor & Region and the various Theatre/Artists groups who utilize the facility.”

This is a very significant change to the motion, so I checked to see if councillor’s had amended the motion during the February 5th meeting and found no such amendment - the only one made was “to reflect that Councillor Dilkens disclosed an interest on Item No. 1 respecting Brentwood instead of Councillor Brister.”

This amendment is significant because it places the issue of “dissolution” from being shared with the City of Windsor, to solely borne by the Capitol Theatre. So out of curiosity, I emailed the City Clerk, as I may have missed something:

“I am writing to ask when council gave approval to amend the minutes of the January 29th meeting regarding the motion pertaining to the Capitol Theatre (CR46/2007). When was this authorization given, and by whom?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.”

Yet another issue to keep you posted on. If my suspicions are correct, Mr. Arditti, in his blogs “Don’t Cry for Windsor, Councillor Valentinis” and “Do you understand the game yet?” could very well prove to be correct.

UPDATE:

I received a response from Brenda Andreatta as follows:

“Mr. Schnurr: no council approval was required. Council’s Procedural By-law allows the Clerk to make such minor clerical, typographical or grammatical corrections in form to any by-law, motion or resolution and/or minutes as may be required for the purpose of ensuring correct and complete implementation of the actions of Council. The change to CR 46/2007 was made in consultation with the Chief of Administrative Officer.”

Well, the by-law does say that:

“25.8 The Clerk shall make such minor clerical, typographical or grammatical corrections in form to any by-law, motion, resolution and/or minutes as may be required for the purpose of ensuring correct and complete implementation of the actions of Council. “

I wrote back to ask if removing an entire line in a motion is considered minor, since this “correction” changes the scope and meaning of the motion. I also asked if councillors were made aware of the change.

We’ll have to see what the response is.