What Is The Councillor Trying To Tell Us

Here is what Councillor Halberstadt wrote on his BLOG. Did he write it and then leave town to get away from the attacks from his colleagues that will surely come?

Interesting that he went to Sudbury too. Personally, I think he is really there to spy on them to see what they are doing right to become an economic powerhouse so he can use their techniques if he decides to run for Mayor. Remember how the Toronto Star compared Sudbury so favourably over Windsor recently!

• "Councillor Halberstadt will be on vacation until July 21, fishing for bass and pickeral north of Sudbury. In the meantime he wants you to know a couple of things. He was the lone Councillor to vote against the in camera resolution last Thursday to keep the $75-million loan deal on the table in the lapsed negotiations with the City of Detroit to secure the American side of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel in public hands. He would also like you to know that he agreed with lawyer Cliff Sutts' recommendation that the Windsor City Council meeting be held in camera after he asked Mr. Sutts why it needed to be private, and Mr. Sutts responded: "I don't want to be sued for one thing."

Here are some comments I have arising from his BLOG:

• the Tunnel deal is still on the table


• the Star's headline on Friday makes no sense now, to me anyway : "Tunnel deal put on hold by city"


• everyone else on Council voted to keep it there


• how could the negotiations be lapsed if it is still on the table and if Anthony Adams claimed "William Phillips, who has represented Detroit in the negotiations, spoke with Sutts as recently as Thursday night, and Sutts asked for Phillips to provide him Detroit documents" and if "Sutts said he still has authority to continue speaking with Detroit officials"


• how could they lapse if Eddie was working on the deal on Friday so that he had to snub John Tory


• why didn't anyone tell Detroit of Windsor's new position "officially"


• what is the new Resolution and no Alan did not tell me there was one


• will taxpayers ever learn what it says


• fear by a lawyer of being sued is not a reason to keep the meeting private


• why would Sutts be sued anyway....what risks is he concerned about


• who would sue him


• Is Sutts telling us indirectly that taxpayers may be hurt and that the project may cost Windsorites money so he wants protection from his guarantee. Sutts said previously: "the deal will not be completed until he is fully assured local taxpayers will not be hurt.“We will be extraordinarily cautious so costs of the acquisition will be self-supporting of the project itself. That there will be no need to go to the well of the city to support this transaction."


• what were the other reasons for the meeting going private.

Perhaps you, dear reader, can explain all of this. I cannot