I’m always cautious when deciding who to support as a representative for council.
While I look for candidates who can tackle the nitty-gritty of the issues facing our city both intelligently and compassionately; I also seek candidates who understand fully both the limitations and opportunities a council seat can offer.
In short – I want honesty.
Candidates who knock on my door telling me what they think I want to hear as opposed to what is possible will quickly become familiar with the sound a shutting door makes.
Early in the campaign, activists are framing some issues – the innocuous sounding “livability” issue has surfaced.
I’ve always found that use of that term interesting – it’s as if to say our neighbourhoods are not livable and calls upon government to make it so.
And it all sounds really good on paper – much like stating the city should never have allowed the Ambassador Bridge company to purchase the homes it has or allowed them to board up their homes [in fact they were ordered to do so]. It is reminiscent of current Councillor Postma’s former attempts; and suggests more of the same failed strategy while ignoring the more obvious.
But scratch beneath the surface – and it is more of the same empty rhetoric, in my opinion, we have been subjected to by some of the current council for the last 4 years – but that is for another blog.
Who doesn’t want a “livable” community?
But what is it? What will take it to make our presumably unlivable neighbourhoods vibrant communities that people will flock to – with each demographic presenting new challenges, and yes, opportunities.
Googling the term “livable communities” I found a host of various definitions ranging from the building of amenities to investing in infrastructure to democratic reform to preparing for the coming demographic shift.
And it’s not as if our councils of past and present haven’t tried to make our community more “livable.”
Many community improvement plans involving resident participation have been studied and implemented – but so far have only employed the services of a feather duster.
The problem?
While good on paper, successful community improvement plans need both funding, willing developers and of course, the economic foundation upon which to build and sustain them - key factors rarely discussed by those promoting “livability.”
Consider the City of Pittsburgh.
In many ways, it is a mirror to Windsor – but the city’s reinvention has also had consequences.
Consider this article from the Tribune-Review from November 2003:
Leaning hard on suburban lawmakers, Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy proposed a 2004 budget Monday that asks the state to grant Pittsburgh distressed status.
Next year’s proposed $399 million budget keeps in place $25 million in cuts made this year and counts on an additional $15 million in savings by privatizing emergency medical services and shifting some health care costs to firefighters. But the budget still falls $42 million short of balancing.
Receiving distressed status would allow city officials to erase that shortfall by imposing, without legislative authorization, an earned income tax on suburban residents who work in the city. It also would give city officials wider latitude in negotiating with labor unions, although existing contracts couldn’t be abrogated…
…Murphy has pushed in vain for authorization for new sources of revenue…
…In addition to making those cuts permanent, Murphy also plans to privatize emergency medical services, stop filling most salt boxes, sell the city asphalt plant and trim other expenses for additional savings next year.
And consider this article from the Tribune from November 2007:
Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has said he would like the state to review Pittsburgh’s financial progress, but he hasn’t called for an end to the state’s financial oversight.
Pittsburgh’s financial problems are many. It has a pension that has $500 million deficient, more than $1 billion in long-term debt and $24 million in annual workers compensation costs.
This is beginning to sound a little too familiar.
But consider the following.
In 1997 the City of Pittsburg held a city-wide referendum on whether or not to pursue a $943-million redevelopment project which included the new PNC Park and NFL stadium. Voters in all 11 participating counties overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, but all levels of government decided to pursue the project anyway and developed ”a variety of public funding sources, including a hotel tax increase, to help fund $772.2M of the estimated $943M project.”
More recently, the City of Pittsburg – still under “distress” status, in another attempt to pay down it’s $1-billion debt is contemplating a tuition tax on students:
“We can no longer afford to provide city services to those who are not paying their fair share,” he said, adding that the levy is “something I wish I didn’t have to do.”
University of Pittsburgh students would pay $135 a year, he said. “That’s less than one-tenth of what Councilman [William] Peduto pays in property and wage taxes.”
While Windsor’s financial situation is clearly not as severe as Pittsburgh’s – the message of sustainability is clear – not only in environmental terms – but financial as well.
Regarding Pittsburgh’s economic recovery, author Mike Boda writes that Pittsburgh’s recovery didn’t pan out evenly for everyone:
The region’s desperation following the collapse of the steel industry has also led to a willingness of the local elites to be quick and generous in doling out the public subsidies to private business interests, perks better known as corporate welfare. They have also allowed the region to be used as laboratory for a host of neoliberal economic experiments.
Our beloved sports teams have all threatened to leave town without new, publicly funded facilities; despite a voter referendum opposing this, they all got new digs. Businesses coming or going all expect the same kind of largess, and the politicians oblige and behave like lobbyists.
Against this backdrop I view the vague calls for “livability” with caution.
The economic restructuring – or reset as I wrote about back in 2007 – is not complete.
And the jobs the new economy will bring us will more than likely be highly skilled high-tech, “green”, as well as lower paying service sector jobs that simply will not replace all the good paying manufacturing jobs lost.
As a more senior and wiser friend of mine said, it could be a society increasingly divided between haves and have-nots.
Coupled with an aging population and the challenges that will present in the near future in terms of health care, pensions and accessibility - governments of tomorrow will be increasingly cashed strapped – if they aren’t already.
And if the City of Pittsburgh is any indication – they will be looking for new sources of revenue to sustain these increasing demands.
”Livability” is a nice word that is vague enough to mean many different things.
But is it people who make a neighbourhood and neighbourhoods a community. If you’re a regular reader of the Mayor of Monmouth’s blog - you’ll know exactly what I mean.
And if you don’t invest wisely in people first - whether it be through education, retraining and skills development or the basic infrastructure that municipalities are charged with – funding these factors of livability – whatever they may be – becomes a significant issue for Canadian municipalities with limited venues for revenue generation and years of neglect of existing infrastructure.
For me, the coming election will be about balancing priorities with that of tax strapped residential, commercial and industrial sectors that have been pummeled by the Great Recession of 2009.
If livability is spending untold millions of public dollars on canals or subsidies for corporations - count me out.
But if it is redirecting those funds by investing directly in people and funding already existing tools that is tax neutral and financially sustainable – I’m all ears.
Chris Schnurr
Carol Kosowan LL.B., B.A. (Law), B.A. (Policy)
I want a candidate that is honest, says what they mean, means what they say and one who is not manipulative. I want to know what the issues are and i want the issues to be in the Star, the Tuesday after the Council Meetings. It’s not enough to print an advance agenda- we need to see the actual outcomes.
I also would like to see a common sense approach to how City Hall is run. No BS. good information, transparency.
There have been too many coy secrets offered up as we taxpayers sit on the sidelines, muted waiting to see how much more services are going to cost us.
After many years of observing council at work, I have concluded that our biggest problem is a mindset that thinks that revitalization – both economic and social – can be had by a massive one-time infusion into some project that is “sold” to us as “the answer”.
In fact, revitalization is the product of hundreds, perhaps thousands of small acts that solve small but nagging problems – but more importantly, stop those problems from turning into large, unmanageable problems that make everyone run for cover.
To our great misfortune, our city councilors have had a penchant for attaching their names to “signature” projects that don’t actually solve problems and usually make them worse.
But the fault is not theirs alone. If you want your community to reflect your needs and wants, put yourself into it. Call your councilors – expect answers from them – inform yourself and don’t settle for silly answers.
Most of our present councilors are too ignorant of how the world works and don’t have time to figure it out. They are only part-time councilors after all and there are only so many hours in a day. Instead, they rely on what the city’s administration feeds them – happy to provide their constituents with an answer – any answer. Unfortunately, it is not necessarily the right answer for people who want their neighborhoods to be livable and safe.
The “answers” that councilors get are informed by the agenda set by the head of the corporation – which is why the municipal governance system tends to attract megalomaniacs who are intent on putting some personal stamp on the community.
Wake up everyone – a community is a system – it is the sum of its parts – and you must be responsible for some of those parts.
Our biggest challenge right now is finding someone who will tolerate the messiness and figure out how it can fit into the big picture rather than someone who presents us with the big picture and then beats us all into submission.
Well said, Vinok.
my response at http://www.scaledown.ca
I knew you would
I had the same reaction when i read that story Chris. Its just another excuse to tax and spend. Those people running said nothing. I made that mistake in voting for francis twice. never again.
There is one aspect that always seems to escape most people when dropping words like “livability”……what does that really mean to THEM. Don’t look to what it means in Pittsburgh, Seattle, Copenhagen etc.
I know many people who have left Windsor for greener pastures and when we speak they always seem to have some sort of pity for me that I still live here. I on the other hand laugh when the idea comes up because my life and my basic needs as a father, husband, restauranteur etc are more than met here in WIndsor.
In fact I thrive here. When potential candidates throw out catch phrases like livability and follow it up with examples of what other cities have done to combat it I see it as a red herring to give people the idea that progress can be made from copying others.
We need to look to ourselves for the change and the answers. Nobody will ever disagree that we want a “livable” Windsor and rid our city of blight but what are we prepared to do to accomplish this? defining the catch phrases without including some ideas to solve them just seems like posturing. there are no BIG ideas that will “save” Windsor. (if we need saving at all). Vinok said it best by saying that its the sum of thousands of small acts that lead to major change.
Why do we keep looking for BIG ideas from other cities to solve our own shortcomings. We have one of the most unique civic situations in Canada because of our geographic location. We need to look within and work together to make the changes that WE want to become to a more “livable” city.
Exactly Rino.
Livability to a senior citizen living in geared to income housing may view livability as a safe street and having an elevator that works properly.
To a student – it may be access to nightlife and transit service.
To a family, it may be close proximity to schools and parks and low taxes.
To the unemployed, livability may be access to quality employment and opportunities.
To the upper income – it may be access to world class entertainment, marina’s etc.
For me, livability is affordable housing; effective and efficient transit service (since I do not drive) etc.
There is something inherently difficult in getting people to understand both the limitations and opportunities a city councilor has. I will be focusing on many different issues that most people will connect with but through a bit of a different perspective. Council and the mayor’s office has alienated themselves from so many community groups and organizations. Any candidate or councilor needs to see that building relationships and working in partnership with community groups, business organizations and basic citizens is how the biggest changes come to fruition. While my ego would love to say that I, as a candidate running for council, will make huge changes and sweeping reforms that better our community, it doesn’t really work that way. I hope to foster and build relationships with people that will make small changes daily that lead to true and constant progress. That sort of progress is sustainable both financially and socially. Those changes and progress will, by there own inherent nature, make the city more “livable”.
Great approach – try not to let the voices of intelligent, caring RATEPAYERS get drowned out by those they employ in administration. Despite the level of expertise in administration – it is their job to make the possible happen – not keep telling us that things are impossible.
THINGS ARE RARELY IMPOSSIBLE – JUST HARD
Rino, Yes and no. Of course Windsor’s solutions to its problems (and we do have problems) need to be as a result of an internally focused thought process. But, if other communities have proven, workable solutions, we can tailor them to meet our own situation without re-inventing the wheel.
We are not unlike other cities in Canada simply because of our location. Sault Ste Marie, Fort Erie, Sarnia, in Ontario, Climax and Portal, SK, and other cities across Canada are gateways to the US and like us have had to go through, or are going through, similar problems. We cannot throw out their home-made solutions just because we are not in identical situations.
The solutions don’t have to be “big ideas”, just workable ones.
While most of those other cities share similarities because of the proximity to the border there are differences that need to pointed out. Being a border city next to a major metro area like Detroit offers a different reality than most of the other cities you mention. Using the arena as one simple example. People have made comparisons and parallels with London and examined why London had success putting the arena downtown. The reality in Windsor is that we can and will go to Detroit to see many of the acts that come in (aside from hockey) as Londoners can’t and don;t have that option. People will drive to London for certain shows while in Windsor we go 10 minutes across the border and see whatever we want. The economic implications because of this fact are unique to Windsor.
As for taking some of their solutions and incorporating them in our plans, that totally makes sense. What I see as a continuous problem is the fact that many people attach themselves to an idea or solution from elsewhere and want to incorporate it whether it makes sense in Windsor or not. We love the catch phrases of ‘light rail transit’, ‘sustainability’ etc. We try to shove a square peg in a round hole. We need to decide what our issues are specifically and what direction we want to go in and then look for input from what others have done. I think many people jump the gun and want to employ fixes from elsewhere whether they make sense or not.