Still Number One

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Eddie's Tunnel Toll Increase And Bill C-3

CKLW reports this morning:

"TUNNEL INCREASE CONSIDERED

Windsor's Tunnel Commission is considering a toll increase. Right now, the rate is $3.50 CDN to travel from Windsor to Detroit. The return trip - from Detroit to Windsor - is $4.75 CDN. Tunnel Commission Chair, Eddie Francis, says travellers are confused by the discrepancy. A decision on an increase is expected soon."

I was confused too...To avoid the discrepancy, why not REDUCE the US toll so that the combined Tunnel toll at the Cities owned Tunnel would be less than the private sector Ambassador Bridge. Shouldn't that drive more traffic TO the Tunnel rather than a price increase which should drive traffic AWAY from the Tunnel

Anyway, back to the main point of this BLOG. What would happen under Bill C-3 if this happened?

Let us assume that the Tunnel's tolls increased by 50 cents so that the combined Tunnel toll was now $8.75. Let us also assume that since the Bridge is so well-managed, there is no need for them to increase their tolls and they remained at $8. What would we expect to happen assuming that border crossers are price sensitive.

Almost immediately, vehicles would move from the Tunnel and over to the bridge to cross the border since the costs were lower there. There now could be huge back-ups at the border at the bridge and to get vehicles back, the Tunnel would have to reduce its price back to what it was before to re-establish equilibrium.

The end result---Consumers win because competition in the market kept prices low.

Let's look at what could happen with the same facts under Bill C-3.

The Act states:

15. The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the operation and use of international bridges and tunnels, including regulations
(b) respecting the tolls, fees and other charges that may be imposed by owners or operators of international bridges or tunnels for their use, to ensure the efficient flow of traffic

Obviously the backups at the bridge means that there is not an "efficient flow of traffic." That allows the Government to intervene in the market economy and "regulate the price." Do you really think one Government is going to cut the money another level of Government may take in? Hey they are Governments after all.

Accordingly, to re-establish the equilibrium between the bridge and Tunnel again, the Government could "regulate" the Bridge Co. to increase their tolls, yes increase. The bridge's price would be viewed in Transport Canada's terms as "predatory" and have to be increased by at least the extra 50 cents.

The end result---Consumers lose because Government regulation and not the competitive marketplace forced prices up. In other words, the Consumer is forced to pay the price of a market participant's inefficiency!

I know, I know...Transport Canada's business model did not take into account Eddie needing more money at the Tunnel so this eventuality was never factored into their plans. But then again, Bureaucrats' business models do not often work in practice do they since they have no sense of business reality!

So much for Bill C-3.

Plugging Up The Bill C-3 Leakor

How scared was someone knowing that Evidence was to be given by the Ambassador Bridge Co. executives in front of the Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-3?

VERY!

It was unbelievable. At the conclusion of the hearings yesterday, it was announced that the Minister of Transport was going to hold a reception for Committee Members later in the day, right after Question Period I think. Of course that was not designed to influence the judgment of Members was it? Especially after the Bridge Co. was expected to slam Transport Canada and when it was also said that the Minister would be speaking at the hearings on Thursday.

Can you imagine the outcry if the Bridge Co. held a reception for MPs the night before the hearings in order to soften them up! I assume that the Transport Canada minions were expected to go around at the reception with drinks and trays of hot appetizers telling the MPs how nasty the session was and that those big, bad Bridge Co. people had to be taught a lesson!

But that is not all. The LEAKOR struck again!

On Monday the 29th, the day before the Bridge Co. Evidence was given, Today’s Trucking Magazine, the LEAKOR’s favourite media outlet it seems, reported that a “U.S. Senator has tabled a bill similar to proposed Canadian legislation which would attempt to give the government more control of international border crossings…Last week Senator Buzz Thomas introduced SB 1278 -- the Michigan Border Development and Protection Authority Act -- which would establish public port authorities to oversee and manage border crossings, including private spans like the Ambassador Bridge. “

I have not seen that story reported anywhere yet, not even in the Michigan media, but there it was in a Canadian publication for truckers. The world exclusive!

A key fact was wrong. Buzz Thomas was not a US Senator but a Michigan Senator. It was NOT reported that he is a member of the minority Democrats in the Michigan Senate and what he did is similar to introducing a Private Member’s Bill in Canada.

Of course all of the negatives supposedly being perpetrated by the Bridge Co. were trotted out as justification for the Bill. Comparisons with Bill C-3 were made too just in case the reader did not understand the real reason for the story.

Why Today’s Trucking? Check out what I said before [April 26, 2006 Anatomy Of A Leak: Bill C-3]

• “Huh, what, Today's Trucking--who ever heard of that before? How could that be? Why did this journal get the story and not some major media outlet like CBC or CTV news or the Toronto Star or Globe and Mail or National Post or even the Windsor Star?
  
  With the online world these days, if one wants key people to read something, one does not have to ensure that it goes on the frontpage of the Toronto Star but that it gets reported somewhere and online so that a search tool or a media service picks it up for distribution to clients. The leakor suspected that he/she would never get caught since no one would care.”
  
  

Obviously, the story would be picked up by the clippings service or media or PR people for the various political parties, for the various Ministries involved and other stakeholders. Clearly, the expectation was that MPs who were members of the Committee would receive it, read it and be prejudiced against the Bridge Co. in advance of the hearing so that questions would be awkward and difficult.

And then the Minister’s reception would help stroke their bruised egos after the expected Bridge Co. attacks and make it easy for the Minister on Thursday!

It did not work out as planned I am afraid. I listened to the WEBCAST of the hearings and all I can say was that it was a replay of the Lansing hearings when Dan Stamper spoke. It was a hearing that was respectful, orderly, informative and serious.

It was pretty clear to me that Members had read in advance the Presentation from the Bridge Co. distributed by the Committee Clerk. Just as in Lansing, they “got it” and very quickly too! Just as in Lansing, my belief is that the Canadian Legislators—perhaps even the new Conservative Transport Minister and the Prime Minister’s Office--may now understand that they were sold a bill of goods by their own Bureaucrats. Why I’ll wager that the Minister and perhaps even the PM were told, as a justification, that if Canada passes Bill C-3, then Canada can demonstrate to the US President at the Harper/Bush meeting in July how serious Canada is about border issues. Why we don’t want those National Guardsmen patrolling our border---let them patrol Mexico instead.

Transport Canada’s claim that they talked with stakeholders was shot down in flames. Several MPs dealt with that issue and were rather shocked about what they heard. In fact, the Bridge Co. offered to take the MPs on a tour of their facilities on both sides of the border.

The MPs finally realized what the issue with the Bridge Co. was in a personal sense, especially, since it was made clear that they really are the only private bridge operator and the real target of this legislation. Matthew Moroun explained that under the Act he and his children might not get approval to become owners one day! I think that one statement on its own gave Members pause and there were several comments made, the gist of which was that it was not the intention of the Legislation to punish the Company.

The Bridge Co. made it clear that their objections were not “health, safety and security” issues but “ownership” issues and “micro-management” issues of a bureaucrats telling them how to operate their business on a day-to-day basis. It was also galling to them to have to deal with bureaucrats who were not only their regulator but their competitor as well.

The actions by the Michigan Legislators in passing Budget amendments to take away funding from DRIC was discussed. Again, to me it meant that someone did their homework since that never came out in other hearings.

There was a lot more but one other matter that intrigued the Members (and probably they did not know about it before) was that the Government and the Bridge Co. had fought for about a dozen years over ownership of the bridge during the Foreign Investment Review Act days and that the parties had reached a settlement to end the litigation. The view put forward was that the Government, in effect, was trying to set aside this settlement and bringing back the FIRA issue but in a new guise.

Finally, Brian Masse was there although he was not a Member of the Committee (I think he took someone’s place for the session) but did ask several questions. I was intrigued by what I heard over the WEBCAST when Matthew Moroun introduced himself to Masse while the hearing was in progress. Masse apparently said that they had met once at the Cleary but Moroun said he did not remember that.

And here, silly me, I thought that Brian knew everything and everyone involved in the border! I wonder if the other Members were just as surprised as I to find that this did not appear to be true.

If MPs stand firm in what they were saying, then the Transport Canada bureaucrats, like those at MDOT, have been stopped in their tracks. It was easy for them when they had no opposition but when confronted in a professional manner by the “demonized” Bridge Co., and as the real facts emerged, their tales fell apart.

It really is not the end for Bill C-3. There is a solution that meets the needs of everyone if only people will start talking to each other finally. Certain provisions are non-controversial and can be dealt with as the Bridge Co. pointed out several times. The others need conversation to accommodate the needs of both parties. Perhaps if the parties try, then there might even be an Agreement for Bush and Harper to sign.

Now if only those darn roads in Windsor could be fixed up!

Is The Bridge Co. Serious

You better believe it. When the son of the Bridge Co. owner, Matthew Moroun, the Vice-Chair of CenTra Inc., makes a public appearance in front of a Canadian Parliamentary Committee, you know that they have something important to say.

Not only did Dan Stamper speak on behalf of the Bridge Co. but so did Matthew. And unlike the Mayor of Windsor, who is a stickler for the Time Limits under the Procedural By-law, the Chair of the Commons Committee had the good sense to "waive" their 10 minute limit by allowing them to both speak for about 25 minutes in total. Obviously, the Chair recognized that it was important for MPs to hear what they had to say. Moreover their noon time limit for answering questions stretched over until about 12:30 PM as well!

Here are Matthew Moroun's remarks:

Thanks for the opportunity to meet with this distinguished Committee to discuss the proposed legislation, Bill C-3.

The Ambassador Bridge has a distinguished record of serving the travelling public for over 77 years. The Ambassador Bridge has weathered much over its history, including the Great Depression, World War, the Autopact, ownership litigation under FIRA, NAFTA, 9-11, and power blackouts. For the last 18 years it has become the most popular and preferred border crossing in North America by measure of traffic count. For all of those years the Ambassador Bridge has been an example of the success of the private sector having financed its construction, maintenance and operation entirely without Government funding of any kind.

Since 1979, the Bridge has been owned by my family. We have operated the Bridge successfully, not only financially for our interests and its long term future as shareholders, but more importantly, as stewards of a great
responsibility.

Permit me to suggest--- there is no meritorious catalyst for additional and burdensome regulation of the Ambassador Bridge at this time. The state of the bridge is strong, its finances are sound, its management sharp and successful, and its track record the best in the industry. Additionally, there exists no national or international event, occurring recently or expected that would encourage or attract the invasive fettering of Government.

However, do not confuse my words as introversion or egocentrism. We are neither. Instead we relish the opportunity to discuss the issues and challenges of the border and specifically the Ambassador Bridge with this Committee and, if we were able to, Transport Canada. We not only favor outside input but look upon the Federal Government of Canada as a primary stakeholder in our long term future and importantly our day-to-day business.

It may seem incongruous that our operation has thrived over 77 years without invasive Federal regulation even though the Bridge itself would be incapable of functioning without the hundreds of distinguished Canada Customs and Immigration Officers on our plaza and inspection areas. To that end, let it not be lost that we are not
suggesting that the Ambassador Bridge "go it alone." That would be a ridiculous statement, and an ignorant one.

We are asking this Committee and Transport Canada to please put down their sword. Set this Legislation aside. Instead, engage in meaningful dialogue not just at a very formal hearing to discuss the legalese of this Legislation but rather to discuss and brainstorm and cooperate with one another toward an even more successful Ambassador Bridge for the advantage of the operation, the Government, and the public.

Bridge Co. President Speech To Parliament

Hot off the presses, the speech the President of the Bridge Co. to the Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-3

House of Commons Committee Hearings
Ambassador Bridge Testimony offered May, 2006
Dan Stamper, President

Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to all the members of the Committee for this much desired opportunity to speak today on the proposed legislation governing international border crossings between Canada and the United States. My name is Dan Stamper, and I am the President of the Ambassador Bridge, the number one border crossing in North America connecting Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan. With me today is Mr. Matthew Moroun, Vice-Chairman and Principal of Centra, Inc., our parent company and Mr. Skip McMahon, Executive Director of External Affairs, The Canadian Transit Company.

First, let me say, we are concerned with the intent and the spirit of Bill C-3 as it relates to our company. I would like to share our perspective of the effect of this Bill as it relates to our private sector enterprise and whether it would improve our accountability and add to our successful record of accomplishment of supporting trade and tourism for our region and the world. We have a story to tell, with responsibilities to our economic engines and with oversight from numerous agencies and our customers on both sides of the border. At the Ambassador Bridge, we know the world is watching – and we continue to earnestly perform our duties on a daily basis while preparing for the future.

Let me provide some background so you may clearly understand our concerns. In the early 1920’s a private entrepreneur developed a plan to finance, construct and operate a privately owned international bridge which became known as the Ambassador Bridge. This effort included the private investors taking the full risk of this investment and the responsibility to garner all property needed, necessary legislation in both countries along with local, state and provincial approvals. After accomplishing all of the above and constructing the bridge, the economies of both countries were affected by the Great Depression in the U.S. With no help from the government, the private investors reorganized and survived this horrific economic crisis.

From the mid 60’s the United States constructed interstate highways including I-75 to the Ambassador Bridge (no improvements to the Canadian roads to the bridge). In the late 80’s the United States and the Ambassador Bridge improved roadway connections on the U.S. side to the freeways (no improvements to the Canadian roads to the bridge). In the 90’s the United States and the Ambassador Bridge improved surface roads around the Ambassador Bridge and created additional access to and from the bridge (no improvements to the Canadian roads to the bridge). In the mid 90’s the city of Windsor developed a long-term transportation study (WALTS) at great expense to the city of Windsor and with participation and great expense to the Ambassador Bridge which identified how to finish 401 to the bridge (no improvements to the Canadian roads to the bridge). The report was shelved and never used. In the late 90’s the United States and the Ambassador Bridge started the Gateway Project, creating direct connections to and from the Ambassador Bridge to three (3) interstate highways, I-75, I-96 and I-94 while ensuring the addition of a twin span next to and west of the current Ambassador Bridge (no improvements to the Canadian roads to the bridge). In 2001 Ontario and Canada announced $300 million dollars to finish 401 to the current border crossing (In 2006, no improvements to the Canadian roads to the bridge). However, Canada has successfully built a $6 million dollar pedestrian crossing over Huron Church Road as their only improvement to the border crossing.
Our company has a reputation of speaking clearly on matters that involve our industry and I intend to do so today. Our effort today is to clarify and offer meaningful facts and direction for improving and strengthening the relationship between Canada and the Ambassador Bridge while acknowledging the differences between public and private border crossings, as well as to articulate our concerns about Bill-C3.

We believed the governance of the Ambassador Bridge by Canada was resolved and put to bed after more than a decade of litigation between the parties with an agreement reached in 1992. It is as if some people cannot forgive us for the way in which a 13 year litigation was settled in 1992. As the basis of this settlement, we agreed to invest millions of dollars in Canada on behalf of Canada Customs for new facilities solely at our expense. Since that date we have invested tens of millions of dollars more than what was required or agreed to under the terms of the settlement which created continuous and significant benefit to Canada.

Having gone above and beyond the terms of our 1992 agreement, we are troubled and question the true intent of Bill C-3. Comments made by a member of this government during a recent question and answer period only heightened our concern. The following comments were made by the Conservative MP for Essex:

“In my corridor, a private bridge operator is threatening the binational process for moving forward. This private interest is moving very quickly to twin the span there which really threatens to undermine a process that we are a partner in. It is important that we get this bill through in a very timely fashion without holding up too many add-ons because the clock is ticking with respect to this private interest moving forward. It is a project that, in my humble opinion, is not in the national interest, certainly not in the community interest.

It is important that all members in the House support this legislation and get it through quickly, so that we can avert this type of situation or at least have some oversight over what is happening. This is a necessary piece of legislation.”


It troubled me, quite frankly, when I read the Members’ speeches regarding Bill C-3 since they contained so much misinformation that was being discussed as if it were the truth. Whoever is perpetuating these myths is not doing a favor to the economies of the region nor to the economies of Canada, the United States, Michigan and Ontario. Those who believe that they are “helping” the region are hurting its citizens on both sides of the border as tourists and business investment are chased away.

I am really here to tell you about our positive actions for the border and how we want to work with the Canadian Government, but let me deal with a few of the more outrageous statements.

1) “When we look at the level of traffic and the impact of the backup of that traffic into communities such as Windsor, there obviously is a need for new bridges.”

The truth is that traffic at our crossing and at the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel is down about 30% from 1999 levels. The optimistic traffic numbers projected by DRIC have been revised downward several times already. With the Ontario Government “No Smoking ban” coming into effect on May 31, Windsor tourist business is projected to fall even more dramatically. In fact, our Bridge is only at 50% of its capacity now!

Yes, there were truck back-ups at our Bridge immediately after 9/11 as there were at every crossing. But why haven’t you been told that our Company, not the Canadian Government, fought and even sued the US Government successfully to build customs booths and to ensure they were fully staffed. When they opened, the truck back-ups disappeared. In fact, the Deputy Police Chief of Windsor wrote to me and complained that his biggest problem now is speeders on Huron Church Road (We will get back to this problem later.)

Here is what Windsor’s Deputy Police Chief wrote:

“In closing, where a year ago commercial truck vehicles on Huron Church Road and Wyandotte Street were often stagnant for extended periods of time requiring our resources to direct traffic to keep intersections clear, we now deploy our traffic personnel to this major artery for proactive traffic enforcement aimed at speeders. Whereas, a year ago, we couldn’t get commercial truck traffic to move anywhere we now have to work to ensure that all vehicle traffic abides by the speed limits on these same roadways. In addition, whereas a year ago, I was inundated with citizen calls almost daily regarding traffic flow issues in the Bridge area, I have not received any of these calls in the recallable past year.”

A second statement requires correction. In your Chambers it was stated that,

2) “In my corridor, a private bridge operator is threatening the binational process for moving forward. This private interest is moving very quickly to twin the span there which really threatens to undermine a process that we are a partner in… the clock is ticking with respect to this private interest moving forward.”

The facts are as follows:

A. After agreeing in 1992 to settle all outstanding litigation and investing tens of millions of dollars, we announced in 1993 that we were preparing to build additional lanes between Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan consistent with that agreement.

B. The Canadian Transit Company publicly began its effort to enhance its facilities in 1993 and has continued to acquire the necessary property and engage consultants and engineers to prepare all necessary documents and approvals to allow the construction of additional lanes over the water.

C. It is DRIC that began in 2001 and has been rushed in an effort to catch up with and replace the Ambassador Bridge’s commitment for additional lanes.

D. The same bureaucrats in charge of the DRIC process are the people responsible for approvals of the Ambassador Bridge project. This creates a group of bureaucrats as a competitor of the Ambassador Bridge, at the government owned Sarnia / Port Huron bridge, and creates a direct conflict since they are judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the Ambassador Bridge projects.

E. Thirty percent (30%) of all international commercial crossings are destined for or emanate from industrial businesses in Windsor. This number is so large that if a separate crossing were built just for Windsor shippers it would be the fourth largest crossing at the border. The reality is Windsor is an industrial town and any new truck tunnel or dedicated road will not change things; this is a pipe dream for the naive.

It is NOT my desire to be offensive but the truth does need to be told. As mentioned earlier with regard to Huron Church Road, the fact is, there are problems at the border. The main impediment at the border is the lack of any adequate surface roads and a thoroughfare from the Ambassador Bridge to Highway 401 on the Canadian side of the border for use by not only international traffic but Windsorites as well. The fact is that Michigan has invested $184 million federal and state tax dollars for the Ambassador Bridge Gateway infrastructure. Michigan has streamlined and maximized border investment with the Gateway and the Ambassador Bridge has invested nearly $500 million private dollars preparing for additional lanes between Windsor and Detroit. Windsor roads from the border to the 401 remain deficient and will impede trade in this corridor. Despite all of the public and private dollars invested on the U.S. side of the Bridge…despite the $300 million Canada’s federal and provincial governments announced in 2001 allocated to improve access to current border facilities…Canada has failed to solve their well known problem: a road from 401 to the border. Also, there is a serious under developed road system surrounding the border crossing. We will stand in line first to support improvements to the Canadian connections to the Ambassador Bridge and urge you to focus efforts in this direction. In our view, public monies that would be devoted to a new crossing, which will disrupt communities not now impacted by a bridge, would be better spent on improvements to the existing corridor.

Now, specifically regarding Bill C-3 and the “health, safety and security” aspects of the Bill, I am certain that mutual agreement can be worked out on the technical terms as has been achieved in the past. We have little difficulty with security matters either because immediately after 9/11 we engaged, managed and are paying for 24 hour a day armed security at the Ambassador Bridge, unlike other border crossings. Most of the latest security technology innovations are put into service first at the Ambassador Bridge.

We are aware that the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association has given testimony regarding the sections of Bill C-3 dealing with toll collection and financing. We respectfully request the right to submit additional information regarding more appropriate language dealing with the Ambassador Bridge as a private owner and long-term operator of the most efficient international border crossing in North America and consistent with all earlier legislation both in Canada and the U.S. and agreements between the parties.

To the extent that the sponsors of Bill C-3 are trying to emulate the Presidential Permit process in the United States, they have not done so in Bill C-3. The Presidential Permit process is designed to focus on the single issue of whether new border infrastructure is in the public interest. Thus, the U.S. agency which decides whether to issue such permits, the Department of State, focuses only on that public interest issue and does not involve itself in approval of changes of ownership of bridges or operation of bridges. Ownership and operation are matters left to the bridge owner, both by the U.S. and by Canada. This is wise policy since there is no reason to believe that the private sector will not do a good job in self-regulation, as it has for decades without any problem.

By contrast, Bill C-3 would involve the Canadian Government in such matters. However, Bill C-3 is much too invasive in injecting Government into the regulation of bridges. For example, the Bill unnecessarily puts the Governor-in-Council into a micro-management position by authorizing it to adopt regulations on the operation and use of each bridge.

Simply stated, there is no problem with the status quo that would warrant this proposed new level of government involvement. Bill C-3 is a solution in search of a problem.

Further, in the case of the plans to add another span to the Ambassador Bridge, the State Department has determined that no Presidential Permit is needed since the Ambassador Bridge has previously been approved by statute. So too in Canada, existing bridges should be grandfathered as against any requirements relative to obtaining approval for new construction or alteration. Any other approach will cause private investors to think long and hard before making significant infrastructure investments.

On the other hand, to the extent that Canada wishes to take reasonable steps to insure that persons with criminal backgrounds or persons who pose security risks, do not control, or come into control of, new or existing international crossings, we have no objection to that type of limited and reasonable regulation to protect the public interest. At the same time, any new measure should make clear that foreign ownership in and of itself is not unlawful or impermissible, or grounds for disapproval. Government regulation in this area that goes beyond reasonable security considerations might stifle private investment and involve the government in private sector affairs best left unregulated.

Further, Bill C-3 carries with it the risk of inappropriate extraterritorial impact. At a minimum, the bill should be amended to provide that the Government be advised of a change of control in ownership, not that it be given a right to approve or disapprove control, other than for security concerns and then only after consultation with the U.S. This will ensure against unilateral action on a matter as fundamentally bi-national as a bridge across the border.

The scope of the regulatory making authority must be focused exclusively on the purpose of Bill-C3 (ie. Safety and security).

Further, I note that there has been a trend in recent months in our nations and elsewhere to enhancing the growth and benefits of privately owned infrastructure projects. The Ambassador Bridge and several new or planned privately sponsored toll roads offer examples. The growth of private investment in infrastructure should be promoted by the Canadian Government as a means of achieving the benefits of private funding and efficient operation, saving taxpayer dollars for use on other projects. As noted above, public funds could be well spent in Canada in improving the approaches to the Ambassador Bridge.

We have a long term relationship with the Government of Canada and the Government of The United States built on 78 years of history and respect. Now the Government of Canada unilaterally attempts to wipe away what we have achieved with the stroke of a pen. Moreover, the Bill as drafted seems to allow the Government to act retroactively as well.

As you are aware, there are numerous pieces of legislation governing the Ambassador Bridge not only in Canada but the U.S. as well. This legislation in both countries has been created and together they govern the Ambassador Bridge as an international border crossing. Any unilateral change may disrupt the meaning and application of these international agreements. If changes are needed, we are ready to work closely with the government to develop meaningful legislation that continues to protect the public and creates an environment that not only allows for but motivates the border crossing owner / operators, whether public or private, to invest in and manage efficient border crossings for the good of Canada and The United States. We are NOT a new company starting out but a legitimate border operator who has done its best for the good of this Country and its American neighbor for over 75 years.

We are not looking for another drawn out and disruptive legal mêlée. Lawsuits are not productive and are expensive while taking up time and effort that could be used more effectively in accomplishing something positive. We want to work with the Governments of Canada, Ontario and Windsor along with those in the United States, Michigan and Detroit to provide the most effective border crossing experience for business and consumers in North America. We are already the best operator according to a US Government Report and intend to remain #1. We also are fully prepared for the future and believe that meaningful and thoughtful legislation will ensure that all border crossings can fulfill their mandates on behalf of Canada.

We would like to invite any and all members of Parliament to visit the Ambassador Bridge for a tour, either as a group or as individuals. We would be pleased to host such a tour of the entire facility so they are able to see first hand that it is a total international piece of infrastructure, not just two halves being operated separately. A tour would help crystallize and clarify your views with a greater insight to the perception and actual restrictions we face.

If I may leave you with one message, the Ambassador Bridge Company wants to work co-operatively with your Government and those others involved for the good of both citizens and the economy. Irritants such as those in Bill C-3 can be dealt with if the parties are willing to do so. We stand ready to meet with representatives from the Canadian government for the betterment of the border and Canada similar to what we accomplished in 1992.

We invite questions from the Members of the committee and will try our best to answer.

Estrin/Schwartz Bills At Council

A slight blip. A one-day wonder. Open and transparent Government not by having a proper disclosure and discussion but by burying the Legal Department Report on border fees in a Communications Package.

Just as I expected, but for Councillor Halberstadt, not one single Councillor asked a question or made a comment about the fees paid out at the Council meeting last night. Close to $2.5 million paid out by the end of this month after the OMB hearing fees are added in and not a peep. In fact, if it were not for Councillor Halberstadt, and especially his questioning by Joe McParland on Cogeco after the Council meeting, we might not have heard anything about it. Even Patty Handysides on her pre-Council show on CKLW surprisingly did not mention it!

As I thought, the numbers may not be complete. When Councillor Halberstadt asked about other lawyers fees, specifically about Cliff Sutts, he was told there were none. Yet we know that "....Francis said he will discuss the legality of any proposed lease buyout today with Windsor tunnel commission lawyer Cliff Sutts." (Windsor Star 10-21-2005). WTC---I guess that is how they got around it but isn't the Windsor Tunnel Commission a part of the City of Windsor?

Mention was made that the consultant fees disclosed were those paid through Mr. Estrin. Were there others?

The easy way to get meaningful answers is by providing a breakdown. Since a Councillor is in no better position that a citizen to get such information, then it looks like a Council vote is necessary to release it. Want to bet that never happens? When Joe asked Councillor Halberstadt about it, the Councillor pretty much said that no one wanted to do any more.

Where were Councillor Budget and his Budgeteers questioning the amount? Councillor Budget always talks about saving pennies but in an issue involving millions of dollars, he does not say a word, he does not question, he does not ask! He hides. The man elected because he was the Chair of STOPDRTP is invisible.

All those millions for WHAT? Exactly WHAT has been accomplished other than a high price to take the low road of "do nothing, but create frantic activity?"

There were no questions because then the Mayor and Council would have to be accountable for results. And there are none. $1.7 million for nothing. (I have deducted $800,00 for the OMB hearing) $1.7 million wasted on a billion dollar short-term dream that turned into a "starting point" months later after the hard-sell did not work.

The obvious question is are the City's books in that bad a shape that it took so long to obtain this information. Why did Eddie take so many months to release a figure that was already predestined not to have back up?

So many questions...so little time.

Heartburn

One of my co-Bloggers (Blue Blogging Soapbox) sent me the following information that he saw in Maclean's magazine:

• Your tax dollars at work
  
  Since Radwanski, Ottawa's top 99 bureaucrats have spent $14 million on travel and hospitality expenses. They say spending is under control. It isn't.
  
  CHARLIE GILLIS AND MICHAEL FRISCOLANTI
  
  Those who make their living on Parliament Hill have been eager to close the Great Book of Government Excess. The scandal, pundits and politicians assure us, has produced a "cultural shift." No more meaningless junkets. No more boozy dinners. As proof, they point to rules passed by the Paul Martin government requiring all senior bureaucrats, cabinet members, parliamentary secretaries and ministerial staff to post their travel and hospitality expenses on departmental websites. It's called "proactive disclosure," and it gave Canadians their first-ever chance to scrutinize -- at the click of a mouse -- the airline tickets and meal tabs of their top-level federal employees. For this and other reforms, Canadians owe Radwanski a "debt of gratitude," declared Pat Martin, a New Democrat MP who sat on the Commons committee that uncovered his misspending. "People are far more scrupulous with expenses now," he told the Ottawa Citizen. "If anything, the pendulum may have swung too far...
  
  On Sept. 20, 2005, Anne McLellan, then the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness, Jean Lapierre, then the transport minister, and nine other senior officials rang up $1,842 at Noce, a posh Toronto restaurant, during a four-hour dinner meeting "to discuss the Windsor border file." Leslie Swartman, Lapierre's chief of staff, picked up the tab. When contacted by Maclean's, Swartman described the dinner as a rare opportunity for department heads to "hash out this issue altogether." Wine was served, she said, but it wasn't charged to the public purse. Still, that means each person's dinner cost taxpayers an average of $167 -- not including alcohol. "I recognize that," Swartman said, when told that some Canadians might be offended by such a hefty bill. "Had I known it was going to be as expensive of a restaurant, I probably would have done it somewhere else. But you don't really find that out until you get there."

Geeez, I hope Transport Canada does a better job researching the cost of a road or tunnel for trucks to the Ambassador Bridge than they do for picking restaurants in Toronto!

Don't you think it would be interesting to know who attended? Were they all out of Ottawa? If so, why did they all have to have dinner in Toronto? How did they all happen to be in Toronto at the same time too? Should travel expenses to fly to Toronto for dinner be added into the costs?

I wondered what they talked about too? Perhaps that should be revealed as well. After all, it took 4 hours.

Leslie also flew to Toronto for a one day trip back on February 18, 2005 to "To discuss Border Crossing Issues." I wonder with whom Leslie met and what was discussed.

For those of you who are cynics, Leslie does know where Windsor is as can be seen from the trip on September 17, 2004 here, at a cost of $1,016.22 to "to discuss border crossing issues." I guess the Toronto dinner meeting was an anniversary meeting or something since it was almost a year later.

PS. I wonder whose expense account picked up the cost for the interesting Mexicantown dinner at Xochimilco Restaurant. Perhaps the Michigan Legislators should ask that question.

BLOG #500

This is it, the 500th BLOG I have written since I have started posting "musings about the state of events in Windsor from the perspective of an interested observer of local politics."

Who would have believed that writing a BLOG has almost turned into a new career for me! I know that I have a solid core of regular readers. When I took a few days off to take a short holiday out of town without telling anyone , I received a number of emails asking me if everything was alright at home. People were worried that something had happened.

I feel a pressure too: I have to post my first BLOG before 7 AM. I am told by a number of readers as well that this BLOG is one of the first items that they read with their coffee every morning. So I feel an obligation to get my posting out to them early!

Do my readers agree with me? I am not sure. Obviously many agree with a lot of what I say or presumably they would not read my postings every day. But the common comment that I have received overall is that it is great to have an alternative to the Windsor Star. Readers appreciate a different perspective on stories that the local media does not give to them. Often I will get an email thanking me for explaining the background of a story so that the reader can put the event in a perspective.

Do I really have "sources of information?" You better believe it! I think that City Hall would be shocked to learn who some of the people who have given me information are. At one time, I heard that a variety of people at City Hall were being accused of giving me inside information. What was funny to me as I heard about it was how wrong they were. I am not that stupid so as to use the obvious people. Anonymity does work and once I have some facts, then the rest of the story is easy to find out.

I also have received a number of good BLOG ideas from readers as well. In fact on several occasions, readers have actually written the BLOG for me.

I have found that "border" BLOGS still seem to interest readers the most. My numbers always show an increase when I do a story on this subject. And I like being able to break a story first, before the local media; the competitive instinct I guess.

Who are my readers? It seems that it spans the whole community from students to politicans and bureaucrats at all levels (and in both countries), to business people and retirees. And the numbers----who knows. I started slowly and without any advertising. The page hits have grown significantly since that time, primarily through word of mouth. But even those numbers are understated as I have learned since the BLOG gets circulated within organizations via the group's media person and is posted on bulletin boards at Plant locations in town I am told

I never intended to make this BLOG what it has become. It started out as a way to "publish" a Guest Column that I wrote on the border issue that the Star would not run. How long will I keep Blogging. Probably until at least the border issue is resolved. And that might be a long, long time from now.

Estrin/Schwartz Fees And Solicitor-Client Privilege

It is oh so typical of Mayor Francis. The man who was elected Mayor on a platform of open and transparent government is doing it again.

As you know, since August, 2005, Councillor Halberstadt has requested an itemization of David Estrin's billing for fees after receiving a brief summary of payments to him since he was retained in September 2003. He stated "We will be asking ourselves... 'where is the bill going and do we need to spend this money?'... It's getting to be a lot of money and council has to be held accountable." Councillor Ron Jones wanted a public meeting "to ask Windsor's ratepayers if further use of Estrin or his experts is merited."

Clearly it is an important matter especially because it is concerned with the border file.

In March, it was reported that "The city will disclose what it has spent on Toronto lawyer David Estrin and his consultants to fight its border battles." Naturally, as I have blogged, nothing came out for a long time so I started running a calendar showing the time it has taken for the City NOT to respond to what was promised way back then.

Well now we know the answer, sort of, but you have to know where to look to get it.

• Did we get the information in a press conference held by the Mayor? NO
• Was a press release issued from the Mayor's Office? NO
• Was it disclosed as an Item on the COUNCIL AGENDA INDEX so that people would be aware of it so that they could appear as a delegation? NO

Then how was it disclosed---as part of the Council Communications package for the May 29 Council meeting. There it is, buried in the middle, number 11 out of 17 items, ....a Report from the Legal Department starting on Page 27 of a 34 page Communications package. Interestingly though, it was already completed on May 4 but not disclosed until now!

If no Councillor asked a question about it at Council or if the media did not pick it up, then very few would even know that the answer was given!

As at May 4, 2006, the total amount spent on the border file and Interim Control By-law/OMB hearing is: $2,322,043.05 of which $609,148.82 was spent after August 9, 2005. (That amount will be higher since all the OMB hearing costs involving Estrin and an associate along with consultants testifying have probably NOT been included)

That $609K number is broken down as is the split between border file and OMB.

If you want more information than that, then you are not going to get it! SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE! We are scared off since we are told that there is a potential that the City's legal position, arguments and stratgies would be compromised.

Bollocks!

The OMB hearing is over and most of the border file has been done (and not more will happen until after the Municipal election since the City has no position and DRIC is on life-support). Moreover, the Privilege can be waived by the City. In fact, one can make the argument that it already has been waived by the detail given, as little as it is.

This is no answer and Eddie knows it. Who knows if the information given is even complete.

Council has to take the lead and demand a better breakdown. No one needs to know exactly what the fees are for (so that the City's legal position will not be compromised) but we should at least know who has been hired and by whom, how much was received and when. Only when this is provided can we then have a better feeling whether monies have been spent wisely or wasted.

In one of my BLOGS, I asked for the following information:

1. which law firms have been involved, including US law firms, Ottawa, Toronto and Windsor firms, not just the Gowlings firm
2. which "lobbyist," stratetgic and consulting firms have been used (and let us not play games with words describing their titles either)
3. which polling and survey firms have been used
4. which technical and engineering firms have been used and which transportation planners, air, health and noise experts, land use planners, government/media relations expert, social impact analyst and an environmental assessment expert
5. what costs have they charged us in a way that is meaningful so that we can see if we received value for money on a particular file or part thereof
6. which firms billed the City directly and which ones billed through our law firms or other parties
7. what work did they do for the fees incurred
8. we definitely need to see all disbursements including those paid out by the City for trips for the Mayor, Councillors and staff.
9. we need assurance that these are ALL fees and expenses to every City Department including the Mayor's office and through his budget through certification by the Mayor and the CAO.
10. it should cover ALL border work, not just under Francis but under Hurst as well including but not limited to the Tunnel plaza, Tunnel purchase/lease, Walker Road, the Huron Church overpass.

There is no doubt that the Mayor is very concerned about costs. I am sure that he always expected that the Senior Levels would pay all of these fees as part of the $300 million BIF monies. But that was when they listened to him After the Snub, I bet things changed. I am not so sure that the relationship between the City and the Senior Levels is so good that the amounts will be paid. Accordingly, the border fees and disbursements will come directly out of the City's accounts.

Let's see if any Councillor has the nerve to ask that the information I have requested be provided. I can always keep the calendar going on the BLOGSITE or maybe one has to go the Municipal Freedom of Information route.

So much for "Open and Transparent Government" from this Mayor!

The Lansing Shocker

Just like the Michigan Governor took everyone by surprise, so did the Legislative Branches in Michigan with their budget amendments which effectively will kill DRIC.

Oh I have already heard theories about how their decision can be circumvented (and NO, the Governor cannot veto it if it is structured properly) but the new Director of MDOT, if he wants to remain in his position, will not try that kind of a stunt so soon after Gloria Jeff was replaced! I assume that he is smart enough not to tempt Fate by trying to play games with the Republican majority when the Democratic Governor is not assured of re-election!

I was quite amused by the suggestion I heard that the US Federal Government and the Canadian Federal Government should carry on and pay the bills for DRIC to help out MDOT. Don't bureaucrats understand their role? If they want to be policy-makers, let them run for office!

Don't they understand politics? Do they really think that a Federal Republican party is going to do something that undercuts the Michigan Republican party majority in the House and Senate and potentially take away an issue for the Republican candidate who might defeat the Democratic Governor! Politics is thicker than water, even the Detroit River.

The message came through loud and clear---the Legislators did NOT like what they heard from the Bureaucrats both at MDOT and from the Feds at FHWA! Excessive study fees, spending of $1.5 billion of taxpayer money, no $2 billion matching grants, a decade of effort at the Ambassador Gateway and the Bridge Co. not needing a Presidential permit all combined together to tell a powerful story that a Legislator would have a hard time explaining away to a constituent whose roads had potholes!

Even if she could, I doubt if the Governor would dare veto what the House and Senate want. After all, it was her Administration that made a mess out of everything, or that is how the Republicans will portray it to voters. She needs to take a bold step if she wants to regain the momentum and appear decisive as she did when she killed off the Downriver and the East crossings on her own. She needs to act quickly.

The big winner politically in Michigan in all of this has to be the Mayor of Detroit. He can sit back now and let the Democrats and Republicans chase after him for his support. And this is just one issue that they will have to deal with him on before the November election.

What about Canada? This has to be a set-back for those who tried to push through Bill C-3! All of a sudden the best laid plans of mice and bureaucrats have gone awry! It was clear from Lansing that MDOT was pushing for a public bridge, half of which would be owned by them and the other half by Canada. Visons of dollars from tolls and finally defeating the Bridge Co. dancing in their heads. Bill C-3 was being rushed through on the Canadian side. Get it passed before the allegedly "pro-business" Conservatives figured out what was going on! DRIC was the tool to justify what they were doing. Now it is gone.

MDOT and FHWA made a tactical mistake....their actions forced the Legislators to hold Committee meetings which allowed the Ambassador Bridge President to set the facts out that the bureaucrats did not want Legislators to know. Canada presumably will let him speak as well on the Bill C-3 Committee hearings. I am sure that if Dan Stamper speaks, he will shock some of the MPs when they hear what he has to say. The misinformation being spread should cease at that moment and they will have to face a reality! Michigan legislators did and took action. Will the Canadian MPs have the same intestinal fortitude to tell the bureaucrats where to go!

Does the ending of DRIC help Eddie? Frankly, who cares. He is irrelvant in this matter now. Councillor Valentinis is right. No one listens to Windsor any more. He lost his big re-election foe too. He does not have DRIC to bash around. And for some of the Councillors----maybe now they will get the guts to take some direct action as the previous Council did rather than sitting around doing nothing. Some of them should be worried too that they do not have DRIC to be their "friend" and salvation for re-election.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper should be laughing. The Michigan Legislators did the job for him. He should be agreeing with what they did and should be saying that the process that the Liberals started, another wasteful exercise by the previous Government, is over and done with.

He now has the ability to take charge and act decisively. He should do what should have been done years ago---build the damn road to the bridge already! There is $300 million sitting there. He should commit to doing something now and do it thereby reducing unemployment in Windsor. Eddie won't dare stop him or he would be run out of the City on one of the rails that he wants to turn into trails! It means the possibility, if Harper plays it right, of winning 2 seats here!

Finally, there is the Bridge Co. They won! And we all knew they would. (Oh DRTP is still pretending that they are still able to build a crossing but we know that will never happen). Who will make the first move to talk to them? Someone had better do it, and soon. As time passes, there is less of a need for them to talk to anyone as their project moves forward.

That is the real tragedy for Eddie and Windsor. Had Eddie dealt with them early on and taken them up on their offer made publicly to partner with the City, Eddie would have been able to achieve everything he wanted for himself, personally as a career move, and for Windsor. Our City would have been the big winner with a new efficiently-operating border crossing that would attract tourists and business investment.

As it is now, Eddie will be a one-term wonder, having failed at his major election platform task. (A City Hall insider confided to me recently that the City has no plans for the border)

Who knows what the future will bring for us as the East-West corridor keeps on growing as bureaucrats try to figure out how to prevent the Bridge Co. from moving forward! And do you know what....Perhaps that was the Bureaucrats' real plan after all.

Great Expectations

Charles Dickens was not the only one who had them. Citizens of Windsor have been expecting an answer now for almost three months to a very easy question.

The question now is what is being hidden from us since I have heard from City Hall that the material has been prepared already!

Policing Priorities

Smoking seems to be a bigger crime than violence on city streets or possible crimes against court officials.

If you can make sense out of these two stories let me know. The "no smoking" police have the cash it seems to grow in number while the real ones struggle with financial problems.

Five more officers hired to enforce smoking ban

Windsor Star, Thursday, May 18, 2006

The Windsor-Essex County Health Unit will hire an additional five enforcement officers to ensure compliance with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which goes into effect May 31.

"This will allow the health unit to work with individuals from the business community as well as the community at large to ensure overall compliance with this important health legislation," Tecumseh Mayor Gary McNamara, chairman of the health unit, said Wednesday.

The act will prohibit smoking in enclosed work and public places, including restaurants, bars, sports arenas, private clubs, entertainment venues and offices. It also toughens laws against tobacco sales to minors and will restrict the display of tobacco products in retail outlets, leading up to a total display ban by May 31, 2008.


Security coffers run dry
Mayor says extra court officers straining resources
Windsor Star, Thursday, May 18, 2006

Faced with a summer of police ranks depleted by vacations and the demands of the festival season, Mayor Eddie Francis has warned the attorney general's office it cannot count on police for extra court security much beyond May 25.

Francis met Wednesday with deputy Crown attorney Anne Merritt and informed her the increased security provided by Windsor police officers, added at both downtown criminal court locations after a man slashed himself during a court appearance six weeks ago, is straining limited police resources.

"We can't afford it," said Francis. "It was a temporary solution that's draining our resources. We need our officers on the streets preventing crime, not tied up in court."

The mayor said the issue will likely be decided at the police services board meeting scheduled for May 25. In the meantime, talks with the attorney general's office, court staff and police brass will continue, he said. The issue was not resolved during the Wednesday meeting.

Attorney general's office spokesman Brendan Crawley said the meeting was "part of a continuing and ongoing effort to address the issue of court security."

Police department Deputy Chief Roger Mortimore said police have had six officers, three at each court entrance, assigned to the special court duty since the slashing incident. They search all visitors to the Ontario Court and Superior Court with metal detectors to ensure they are not carrying weapons.

While the number of officers is relatively small, Mortimore said it still takes away from the resources available for other divisions, given the demands of scheduling around-the-clock shifts. He said the situation will worsen with summer vacations and the demands for extra policing for outdoor festivals.

Francis also warned the city is not willing to pick up the province's tab for finding a permanent solution. He said the attorney general's office is studying a walk-through metal scanning system, similar to those at airports, at a cost of between $600,000 and $800,000.

The Host With The Most

I am glad to see that I was able to provide the excuse for the failure of Eddie's meeting for the hundreds of mayors in Canada and the US who were to come here on Friday to talk about passports and such.

According to the Star the session "has been postponed, largely because the date conflicted with the beginning of the U.S. Memorial Day holiday weekend, city officials said on Wednesday."

It did not really matter though. Eddie got the headline and the Editorial so who cares if the meeting ever takes place. Pretending to act is almost as good as acting in an election year.

Of course, if there had been proper planning at City Hall, this would never have happened. It is another failing of this Administration. I guess no one there had a calendar that showed holidays in the US. It sounds so reminiscent of the fiasco involving the Windsor City Council meeting in Tecumseh. Everything last minute and then scramble.

However, this is NOT the important part of the story.

"A new date for the mayors' seminar will hopefully be scheduled for later in June with the expectation 70 to 80 mayors will come to Windsor based on expressed interest, said a spokesman for Mayor Eddie Francis."

Then I saw this story in the London Free Press this morning. There was a "Southwest Economic Assembly, a historic gathering of business, academic and political leaders in Stratford." The purpose was to unite Southwestern Ontario if it is to survive as an economic power. "Fierce global competition is forcing regions to co-operate and abandon old rivalries, assembly attendees agreed."

Our Mayor was there (I hope he did not give a speech talking about the border since Windsor has been identified as the trouble spot since we cannot agree on how to build a road to the bridge!) He said ""We have to put progress ahead of politics. That's what what our constituents, our economies depend on," said Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis, who offered to hold a followup meeting this summer to formulate detailed plans."

There, don't you see it. Eddie knows our downtown business is in big trouble. So what is he doing about it? Simple---running around everywhere offering to host seminars and meetings! First for US and Canadian mayors, then SW Ontario politicians.

In the Star story, it said "Francis said he is considering sending letters to U.S. senators or visiting Washington to speak directly to lawmakers." I bet he offers to hold a meeting for them here as well to see the situation first hand!

It Disappeared From The Agenda

The item was there...right on the agenda. Another "funky" bus terminal matter: "City Centre Transit Terminal (report available on the Supplementary Agenda)"

No "report" was provided so I wrote to the Clerk's office asking for a copy.

Then the item disappeared....Poof, gone, off the Agenda.

Then I was told that the Estrin/Schwartz fees disclosure was to be heard on Monday at Council. But nothing there yet on the Agenda!

The goings on at Council are certainly mysterious to me.

Waiting For Godot

And also waiting for Eddie to release the information about the Estrin/Schwartz fees

DRIC In Major Coma

I have a question for you, dear reader.

Pretend that you are a member of the House or Senate of Michigan. You learn that your bureaucrats are in the process of spending $16 million or so of taxpayer money on a study to build a new crossing between Windsor and Detroit. This is after your Government and the Federal Government have spent a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars planning for a Twinned Bridge at the Ambassador Bridge.

You are presented with 2 alternatives:
1) Seemingly favoured by the bureaucrats, spend $1.5 billion plus of taxpayer money for a new bridge a mile downriver. In effect, duplicate everything you have done for the past decade. OR

2) Support a private enterprise initiative to have built at the Ambassador Gateway a new bridge at the expense of the company, and NOT of taxpayers, and receive up to $2 billion of Federal matching funds to be used to fix up other Michigan roads for which there is a shortage of money.

My question: which alternative would you choose?

Exactly right, #2 is a no-brainer and the only logical choice!

While neither the Michigan House or Senate made that choice ie choose the Ambassador Bridge project, clearly that thinking must have been involved when both Houses in Michigan passed budget amendments yesterday (or rather early this morning).

The Senate version directs that MDOT “…shall not use any funds to support the Detroit River international crossing study or to implement any recommendations made from such study.”

The House version is slightly different "no funds appropriated may be expended for the study of a new crossing of the Detroit River between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario without prior approval of the House and Senate committees on transportation.”

Each respective bill will move to the opposite chamber, and only one version will survive in the final budget presented to the Governor.

We'll discuss the consequences another time!

Cleary A Mess

Eddie has real problems with the Cleary deal. Whom can he blame if it falls apart? Three of the Councillors have conflicts of interest respecting the College since either they work there or have a relative working there I believe so they could not be involved. That leaves seven Councillors to make the decision based on Eddie's negotiated deal. Unless it is a reasonable deal, I can see five of the seven opposing it right off the bat.

On April 19, it was all smiles: "A tentative agreement turning over operations of the Cleary International Centre to St. Clair College and bringing hundreds of students into the downtown is expected to go before city council within two weeks, Mayor Eddie Francis said Tuesday." What's a few weeks between friends, right.

There are probably some very unhappy people downtown in the business community who had some very high expectations.

First the University of Windsor deal went bust and now it appears as if the St. Clair College deal may not happen either. So much for the 1000 students and staff spending money downtown. Gone may be all of the help they can provide to businesses. Say adios to the urban village and perhaps also the funky bus terminal. I sure hope that there is nothing in the Keg deal that guarantees them business. Is this the last hope for the DWBIA too? The new Casino won't help them at all as new retail will migrate away from downtown to the new Convention Centre area.

Will the Cleary deal happen? The College knows that the Mayor is desperate to do a deal to try and save downtown so why not play hardball? Do Councillors know that the deal may not be a good one for the City but are they prepared to hold their collective noses and sign off on it?

On the other hand, it's an election year. Do they want to be part of an Eddie salvage operation, just like with the Bus Terminal and the Arena thereby jeopardizing their own political careers if it is a dumb deal? Do they view this as another Canderel perhaps?

I am told that the issue is one of who “owns” the Cleary once St. Clair moves in. The College wants to be the owner since it chooses not to make a heavy capital investment in a leasehold deal. The City wants to remain the owner since it is still a City property even though it will be leased out. The concern is that the College won't guarantee that it simply won't "flip" the Cleary down the road for big bucks. Can you imagine if the College sold the property and made millions in profit when the City gave it to them for virtually nothing. It would be embarrassing to the “Young Entrepreneur of the Year” that he would be outfoxed by a mere academic.

We were told by the Mayor that "The substantive parts of the agreement were included among the parameters set down by council when these discussions began and should not come as any surprise."

College president John Strasser said, "we hope to have something ready for council by the end of April providing the minor details are worked out and then it's up to council to decide."

I cannot believe however that this is the real issue. It is something so fundamental to the deal that it should have been resolved right at the start of negotiations, probably before the Mayor kissed the University good-bye! If it was left to the end, then it shows the immaturity of negotiating at City Hall.

Will the blame be placed on St. Clair again for pulling out on the deal in the last minute as happened with them at the Income and Security building. Will the Star give us all of the breath-taking inside gossip that points the finger elsewhere than the Mayor's office?

However, President Strasser knows he can wait. The Cleary is going nowhere. It will continually drain money from the City. There will be a new Mayor come November anyway so he can restart negotiations with him.

One of my contacts said to me this morning:

"Notice how everytime something is going bad, Francis is quoted to say "We need to bring resolution to this, one way or another". That seems to be his way of indicating there will be no deal."

Eddie may have one way out...but will the University even answer the phone after the last meeting involving the Cleary? Or is this whole episode nothing more than a big set-up so that Eddie will look like a miracle worker to "save the downtown" and to force Councillors to agree to something that makes little sense? We'll find out soon enough.

John Milton Was Right

"They also serve who only stand and wait" for Eddie to disclose finally the Estrin/Schwartz consulting fees.

Funky Down-Town

Out of sight!

I am telling it like it is, man! Like, it could have been a bad scene, you know. A real bummer. Like, who needs a thousand students downtown when we have Councillor Joyce Zuk?

Like, you know, man, she tells it straight...the serious Councillor who tore a strip off the back of ex-Mayor Mike Hurst when she felt that Council meetings were out of control! The Councillor who challenged her colleagues by thinking outside the box and suggesting that the Canderel space be given for doctors' offices, rent-free, since the subleasing would still cost the City a fortune. The Councillor who can sock it to them eg the "witch hunt," as she called it, at the Library. Oh wow, some real heavy stuff.

Hey man, is this the "real" Joyce Zuk that we are now seeing? Is she in the groove after getting Council to agree to spend funds for a playground in her Ward, less uptight?

First, her description of the new Bus Terminal. It was right on:

• "It's funky," said Windsor Transit board chairwoman Joyce Zuk, also a city councillor. "We can't wait to move out of the bus dump and give the city an esthetic, state-of-the art bus terminal."

Far out!

Then the ultimate....I dare not even think of it. It blows my mind:

• "I'd like to do a little dance of excitement," said Coun. Joyce Zuk. "It's exciting for council when something is going downtown other than a massage parlour."

Get it on Councillor!

Stay loose. Forget the 5 vendor Farmers' Market at the Armouries. Forget the City's Birthday bash. Forget Fireworks Night.

We can have a BE-In. Do you dig it? Seriously, can you imagine the throngs downtown if Joyce does her dance of excitement at the funky bus terminal! It would be groovy!

Peace!

Passports and tourism

I see that the Toronto Star reported that "U.S. President George W. Bush suggested that the United States is flexible on working out which new identification cards will be acceptable at the border with Canada, saying they shouldn't be "restrictive."

Fantastic...just in time so that our Mayor can take the credit for it! Obviously the President must have felt threatened by the calling of a border meeting by Eddie so made this concession. I note though that, according to the Star, "Francis said his staff is confirming who will attend the summit and he hopes there will be enough people to proceed with the meeting." It really does not matter if it takes place or not; a headline talking about action is a headline after all that can be used in a re-election campaign! Just like excerpts from today's Star Editorial.

I wonder when the invitation was mailed out. I am sure that the "Sixty-five U.S. city mayors and 170 Canadian mayors [who] have been invited to attend" will drop everything to come to Windsor this Friday, especially the Americans before the Memorial Day long holiday weekend! What a clever ploy to have them stay here for the holiday eh.

Eddie in his note wrote:

• "We would like to invite you to join with other U.S. and Canadian city Mayors on May 26 at a US-Canada Mayors' Summit, Windsor Ontario Canada to speak out on this issue. We want to ensure that our respective federal governments get WHTI right so that the security and prosperity of our communities are not compromised...
  
  The US-Canada Mayors' Summit on May 26, 2006 from 10 am -1 pm in Windsor Ontario directly across from Detroit MI., will bring cities on both sides of the border together to raise awareness of WHTI, discuss its potential impacts, and propose mutual solutions that will enhance security and facilitate travel and trade between our nations. The summit is hosted by the City of Windsor, in cooperation with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
  
  Changes are needed along the Canada-United States border to improve security and increase efficiency. This is not in question. The issue is how to do this. The post 9/11 security environment provides the catalyst for real change. We need to take the time to get it right. Join us on May 26 in Windsor to add our collective municipal voice to this important debate."
  
  It's happened before in the US. Actions taken without thinking about the consequences to business and tourism on both sides of the border. As was said "its implications were not fully understood or debated."
  
  

Just so you know, this is not a new topic. I found this interesting material from 1998 dealing with Section 110 of the ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996. Section 110 provided that, by September 30, 1998, the Attorney General must develop an automated entry-exit control system that will enable the Attorney General to track the arrival and departure of `every alien' entering and leaving the United States.

Just one excerpt:

On October 14, 1997, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Senator Spencer Abraham, convened a field hearing in Detroit, MI, at which testimony was heard concerning the traffic congestion and delays that would result from the implementation of section 110 as written. ...

Witnesses testifying at the hearing universally voiced concerns that implementing section 110 at the land borders could cause severe traffic delays that would effectively close the land borders. Testimony highlighted that Michigan would particularly be affected because of the relatively large number of high-volume border crossings located in the State. Mayor Archer explained that, of all crossings on the Northern border handling U.S.-bound vehicle traffic from Canada, Detroit's Ambassador Bridge is the busiest U.S.-Canadian crossing, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel is the second busiest, and Port Huron's Blue Water Bridge is the fifth.

Implementation of section 110 at the land borders would, he explained, turn `downtown Detroit [into] a virtual parking lot.' Dan Stamper, president of the Detroit International Bridge Co., testified that the Ambassador Bridge handles approximately 30,000 vehicle crossings per day. Mr. Stamper calculated that `assum[ing] the most efficient and remarkable entry and exit procedures in the world [that] will take only 30 seconds' per vehicle, and making the equally optimistic assumption that only half of the vehicles have to go through the procedures, that would amount to an extra `3,750 minutes of additional processing time each day.' As he pointed out, `there are only 1,440 minutes in a day.' Mr. Stamper concluded that, if section 110 is put into place at the land borders, `we are talking about closing the border...'

Steve Facione, group vice president of Olympia Entertainment, which operates the Joe Louis Arena, the Fox theater, Tiger Stadium, and other entertainment facilities in the Detroit metropolitan area, expressed concern that the many Canadians who make day-trips and evening-trips to Michigan for baseball games, hockey games, and other events would be turned away by border delays and would spend their entertainment dollars in Canada rather than the United States. Port Huron Mayor Steve Miller highlighted the fact that many retailers and manufacturers in Port Huron depend on Canadian business for their survival, and that, without that business, jobs that fuel the economy and the taxes provided by Canadians that go to provide services to Michiganians would disappear. As he put it, `the long lines at the bridge will put an end to the long lines at our cash registers.'

Still Waiting

The countdown continues. When will Eddie let us in on the big secret? What are the fees for Estrin/Schwartz and all of the other consultants?

Understanding DRTP

I have never understood DRTP. I have never understood their tactics or strategy. Clearly, given my background with STOPDRTP and OJIBWAY NOW!, I have never understood why people would support their concept. Yet they are still around notwithstanding that Schwartz and the DRIC engineers have rejected their solution for a border crossing (as did MDOT many years ago in a Report that effectively killed a DRTP-type project!).

It's troubling to me that the Windsor Star did not cover the Rail Lands by-law hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board. They should have. There was only one story about the hearing that I can recall: the story setting out what the City's lawyer David Estrin said in his legal argument. No one was there when DRTP set out theirs and that was a shame.

This is a very important matter. If DRTP loses, then one would have to say that their chances of getting anything in this City are remote. Perhaps then OMERS/Borealis will write-down their investment even if FSCO has not completed their almost 2 year-old investigation.

This whole episode started very innocuously. Several years ago when Mike Hurst was Mayor, for "housekeeping" purposes, two bylaws covering Windsor and the old Sandwich area that was amalgamated into Windsor were combined into one. One small matter escaped everyone's attention at City Hall---the Mayor, the Councillors, the lawyers, the planners---until the very last second. That minor matter was that to the zoning of the DRTP lands, a new item was added: "Truck transport facilities." That housekeeping change might have allowed the DRTP corridor to be used for a truck expressway which today would have to be 6-lanes wide to meet the DRIC requirements.

Could that strange language allow a truck expressway to be built? In the end, that is really what the big hearing in front of the OMB was all about.

When I was with STOPDRTP, I was involved in bringing this matter to Council's attention. I could never understand how everyone at City Hall could have missed this very important point at a time when the border crossing issue was at its height. It just seemed to be below the radar screen totally until it was discovered by a fluke.

It would have been ironic. Here was Council on the one hand passing Resolution after Resolution against the building of DRTP and on the other hand, the "housekeeping" by-law that Council approved might have allowed DRTP to build a truck expressway.

My own view at the time, and it still is, was that the new by-law would NOT permit a truck expressway in any event. How could "Truck transport facilities" mean a "road." It is Highway 401, not Facilities 401. It is Highway 3, not Facilities 3. Ontario's 1996 Provincial Policy Statement in its Infrastructure definition distinguishes between a "corridor" and a "facility" in my opinion.

But let's forget all of that. Let's talk about DRTP. Do you truly understand what it is, even today?

DRTP morphed very quickly from being called "the Tradeway" to its new name "the Jobs Tunnel." At one time, it was our long-term solution. Then it changed at another into the short-term solution. It was to be built at grade at first, then it was to be "enhanced" in April, 2005 to make it "near invisible" and now, in February, 2006, they not only repeat that it can be "tunnelled" but they can do "more." DRTP announced that it was prepared to work with Governments "to tunnel all or substantial parts of its rail corridor, including the south end from the 401 to EC Row." It needed $150 million of taxpayer money in the beginning. Their tunnelled project would cost $2 billion as Marge Byington said in Lansing and who would provide that additional cash? It was a private project which is now willing to work with the federal government "to develop an ownership and management model to ensure... the broader general public interests are best served."

I was not able to attend all of the OMB hearing for personal reasons but I listened to some of it. The one thing I had not heard before was calling DRTP "a truck toll road." The use of that term was interesting to me because it seemed to confirm to me the change in the nature of DRTP: the separation of the truck tunnel and the corridor [BLOG: September 27, 2005 Mike Hurst'll Turn Off The Light For You!] It seemed to be a major switch away from the DRTP "project" to the use of the DRTP "corridor" as the revenue generator.

In other words, the DRTP project was dead and the DRTP corridor would be used as a connector to the new crossing wherever it might be as an alternative to the Talbot Road/Huron-Church corridor! Money was money after all.

As an example, in February, 2006, DRTP said "our rail coridor is available for governments, DRIC and the public to use...We are ready, willing and able to have our rail corridor used for the benefit of...residents"

In a recent Star story, it was reported that "Backers of a border traffic proposal are willing to discuss tunnelling and greenway options for its rail corridor, former mayor Mike Hurst told city councillors Thursday. [Hurst, the DRTP's chief executive said] "If we can assist in moving trucks through a tunnel it would be a huge win for everybody."

One just needs to compare the language of their "near invisible" DRTP project in their April 7, 2005 press release where they talk about the "project" in some detail with the language of their press release in February where only "corridor" is mentioned.

Then when I heard about a "toll" it seemed to clinch everything. Of course, I wondered how high the toll would be for this new tunnelled route since the $2 billion cost had to be covered. Which trucker would use it if there was an above-ground alternative and that alternative was "free?" I also wondered if an extra toll road cost for Windsor only above the border crossing toll would chase traffic away from this area to our economic detriment. All the other border crossings had their roads to the crossing paid for by Government and with no toll or cost to truckers.

Nevertheless I thought then that I finally understood what DRTP had become.

However, when I read the following in the Final Submission by the DRTP lawyer, I became totally confused again. While there was discussion about DRTP being underground ("DRTP, through its planner, has suggested accepting a zoning amendment which would require the placing below grade or tunnelling of the roadway in order to pre-empt the issue of impacts on sensitive lands") , the DRTP lawyer discuseed the "DRTP Corridor Characteristics and Adjacent lands" right at the end of his submission in this fashion:

• DRTP has "characterisitics which would be well suited to the introduction of a roadway for the purposes of conveying vehicular traffic."
• from the river south to the portal, it is underground (Riverside to College)
• as one goes south, there is deep cut with significant berms up to grade and is adjacent to industrial lands or the Van der Water yard up to EC Row
• South Cameron dwellings are old and never had any form of noise or other attenuation
• occupants of South Cameron Blvd are already exposed to road noises
• in DRTP South lands, there are already siginificant berms and noise walls that have been constructed to mitigate impact from transportation use on adjacent lands

When you read this description of the corridor, where are the "sensitive lands?" Frankly, why should anything be tunnelled if one accepts what the DRTP lawyer says? Tunnelling becomes a huge waste of taxpayer money.

Can't you just see it---Governments choose this corridor and then just after construction is started but before a lot of money is spent:

• the Danish Professor's book---MegaProjects and Risk--will be trotted out
• the costing will be re-examined
• someone will say that this is a Megaproject gone wild
• someone will wake up and says $2 billion, or more, for what
• it will set a bad precedent for any new road-building anywhere in Canada they will say
• then the engineers will be asked if we really need the tunnelling
• someone will recall the DRTP lawyer's statement and the route will be examined
• the answer will be given that"No tunnel is needed!"
• find other cheaper ways to "mitigate" the noise and air pollution they will be told
• they will.

All of a sudden, the DRTP project is back! Perhaps now I understand it.

A Beautiful Tribute

Spike Bell is one of Windsor's finest photographers. I met him many years ago when my wife and I first moved to Windsor. He was one of a number of artists who displayed their work at several functions that we sponsored for artists around the City.

The WPD asked him to photograph the funeral of PC Atkinson especially at Heavenly Rest cemetery. He sent me several of the photos from the funeral procession along College Ave. The one photo that "got him" is the one with John Atkinson's little girl Nicole age 7 touching her dad's casket for the last time.

"This picture," Spike said, "is a beautiful tribute to a fine officer and a good family man."

I thank him for allowing me to post it here!