Parking Garage and A Possible Border Strategy

This garage mess might stick to Mayor Francis. He may not be covered in Teflon after all.

The two Windsor Star stories show a much greater involvement by the Mayor than he suggested initially.

It seems that Eddie was deeply involved in the partnership concept right at the beginning. Eddie "made the motion at the Tunnel Commission meeting to approve the partnership agreement between Mady and the City. The Tunnel Commission, which is an agency of the city, approved the deal before it went to city council for approval." What due diligence on the contract terms did Eddie take as a Tunnel Commission member and as a Councillor? As Mayor, Eddie knew about the default for some time. What did he do about it? Handing the matter off now to outside legal counsel is a nice trick to divert attention and foreclose comment but the questions that need answers are not "legal." Why won't Eddie talk?

And perhaps it gives us some indication of what Eddie is trying to do to the Bridge Co with his PLAN on the border as well.


Eddie said in the first Star story:

• "Mayor Eddie Francis admits it was a bad deal for the city. There was no stipulation in the agreement that allowed the city to recoup any of its money in the event of a default by its partner. "This is another file we've inherited where the proper protections were not put in place," Francis said. "The legal agreement that was entered into did not put us in the best position we could be in."
• Francis acknowledges he was on council when the agreement was approved, but says council never got the details of the contract once it was finalized. "Hindsight is 20-20. Our job right now is to fix the situation we now have."

The new revelations in the second story suggest that there are more things to do than just "fix the situation" now. We need to understand exactly what happened since we need to prevent this from happening again. It sounds very much like MFP and Canderel as well and what happened there. The controls put in place by the City did NOT prevent the infamous Agenda Item #5 blank cheque almost being approved!

What other surprises are there that the Mayor knows about but that citizens don't? Some comments:

• Why doesn't the Mayor who is a notorious micromanager know how much is owing in back taxes?
• Why does Mr. Sutts have to be asked that question since it is NOT a legal issue
• Will Mr. Sutts be paid the same amount as in the MFP file
• Why isn't the matter being handled in-house by the City's Legal Dept
• Why didn't Eddie say that he was the one on the Tunnel Commission who made the motion to approve the partnership
• His excuse that Council did not see the final details does not hold water now that it was shown that he was on the Commission that did the deal
• Council's enthusiasm for the report----Eddie was a noted businessman so why didn't he ask questions
• Again, Eddie tried to divert attention by referring to Council not seeing the final details but did the Commission of which he was a part see them and if not, why not?
• Eddie said "All I know today is when agreements come on my desk, before I sign them I read through those agreements" Did that mean that in the past did he not do so?
• "But Francis said the agreement should have contained other legal protections for the city. It didn't " Then why did he approve it at the Commission or did he fail to ask to see the final agreement
• When did Council know about the default since Mady approached the City last year
• Why didn't the City want to get involved to try and salvage its investment
• Will the City try and scoop it as McNevin suggested.

Finally, if the suggestion of Mady's lawyer, David McNevin, is right, then is this what Eddie is trying to do with the Bridge Co.? ["But if the city is waiting in the wings to snap up the property at fire sale prices, it is taking a risk, McNevin said."]. If his objective is to increase the Tunnel car business so that the Bridge's volume is decreased, build Ojibway to take truck traffic away from the Bridge, and then have his public authority in place to control traffic, set tolls and allow for a sharing of profits, then is he trying to squeeze the Bridge Co so they will sell out? Is he trying to make sure that the Tunnel and new bridge make money at the Bridge Co's expense? If so, it is a dangerous and potentially costly game for the Mayor to play. Eddie should know that the Bridge Co. does litigate and usually wins if their business is being attacked. The cost of losing would be horrific for taxpayers.

If I were on Council, I would wonder why the tone of the Bridge Co. ad #3 changed so dramatically from wanting a City partnership in the first 2 ads to focusing on Eddie.

There are lots more questions that need asking at City Hall.