The Burg Watch: Why I Stand Up for Our Community

Featured

My name is Linda Saxon, an Amherstburg, Ontario resident, council watcher, disability rights activist and person with a disability.

As Amherstburg’s first local blogger since 2011 and creator of the burg watch, my goal has always been to keep our community informed. 

Through the burg watch I challenge the status quo because our community deserves better than the minimal efforts and performative gestures like promoting proclamations and raising flags.

A truly inclusive community removes barriers that prevent people from equally participating in their own community.

I’ve written about the barriers that need to be removed to end the exclusion. For example, the lack of accessible amenities like infrastructure, recreation, and civic engagement.

My disability rights advocacy isn’t a political hobby; it’s a commitment to a human right to belong.

Standing up for what I believe in and trying to hold our administration and council accountable has resulted in pushback and isolation. But I’d rather face criticism for defending our community’s right to equity than be liked for staying silent while residents are excluded from their own town.

I am proud of the conversations the burg watch has generated. I’ll continue to watch, write, and advocate—because a stronger, fully accessible Amherstburg benefits the entire community.

I appreciate the friends and allies that have joined me along this journey.

graphic image of brown wooden sign with white text that reads welcome to Amherstburg - a community for everyone with greenery at the base of the posts.
graphic image of wooden sign with text: welcome to Amherstburg – a community for everyone.

Open Air: : Peter Courtney Points to Past Statements

Continuing our deep dive into where candidates stand on Open Air, today we look at incumbent Peter Courtney’s response.

Unlike previous candidates who provided lengthy, detailed answers to my question, Courtney’s reply was brief, pointing to past material published on his Facebook page.

When asked about his position on the accessibility issues surrounding the street closures, Courtney provided the following statement:

“I have answered this question on OA, on my Facebook page. To answer your question, yes! Accessibility was referenced in my statement. Have a good night!”

Key takeaways:

  • A “Yes” on the Principle of Accessibility: Courtney confirms that his position on Open Air factors in accessibility considerations.
  • Redirection to Social Media: Rather than detailing his voting record or policy positions in this message, he pointed to his official campaign or Peter Courtney Facebook page where he has previously posted statements regarding Open Air.

The Reality: The Barrier of Forcing Voters to Search for Answers

While he acknowledges accessibility in his platform, Courtney’s response highlights a different kind of barrier for residents trying to navigate the election: the information barrier.

For residents with disabilities who are asking an incumbent how they plan to fix an exclusionary, ableist event layout, being told to go find the answer on a Facebook page feels dismissive. Navigating social media feeds to find specific policy positions takes time and effort—that shouldn’t be shifted onto the voter when a question is asked.

Furthermore, checking a box by saying accessibility was “referenced” doesn’t tell us how it is being handled. For an individual who uses their vehicle as a primary assistive mobility device, a simple mention isn’t enough. We need to know if an incumbent intends to keep voting to ban cars from the downtown core or if they recognize that the pandemic-era pedestrian model is inherently restrictive. A generic “yes” leaves residents completely in the dark about actual legislative intent.

What Do You Think?

As an incumbent councillor, Peter Courtney is directing voters away from direct communication and onto social media platforms; it leaves critical questions about the event footprint unanswered here.

Should incumbents be expected to provide direct, explicit policy details when asked about accessibility, or is pointing to a Facebook page sufficient? Let me know your thoughts and stay tuned as more candidate responses come in.

Open Air: Molly Allaire and the Illusion of Forgotten Barriers

As we continue tracking where local candidates stand on the downtown summer street closures, today we feature a deeply troubling response from incumbent Councillor Molly Allaire.

Allaire is seeking re-election to Amherstburg Town Council. When asked if she would commit to removing the barriers that deny residents with disabilities equal access during the Open Air weekends, she attempted to plead ignorance.

The Candidate’s Position: Feigning Unawareness

In her reply, Allaire acknowledged that Open Air remains a deeply contentious community issue, but claimed a total lack of awareness regarding its accessibility failures:

“You mention barriers that deny people with disabilities equal access to the community. I do not know of these specific barriers you speak of. Could you please explain so I can make an educated response.”

On the surface, this might look like a candidate open to learning. However, public records and direct email archives tell a completely different story.

The Reality: A Meticulously Documented Paper Trail (2022–2024)

Let’s be entirely clear: Molly Allaire knows exactly what these barriers are, because she has been emailing me about them for four years.

The claim that she needs to be educated on this topic is a massive deflection that is entirely disproved by the written record. Allaire not only sat through my numerous public delegations, but she has also maintained a direct, multi-year correspondence on this exact subject.

My personal records show a clear timeline of her direct engagement with these barriers:

  • September 5, 2022: Allaire responded directly to the burg watch candidate questions regarding Open Air and its community impact.
  • February 18, 2023: Allaire initiated contact regarding Richard Peddie’s comments and a subsequent blog post following his interview on am800.
  • November 10, 2023: Allaire emailed me with the explicit subject line “Open Air,” actively initiating a discussion on how the town could minimize or eliminate the physical barriers caused by the event’s barricades.
  • November 13, 2023: Just days after that email, Allaire officially made the motion to send the Open Air footprint to the Accessibility Advisory Committee following receipt of the residents’ survey noting accessibility concerns.
  • January 11, 2024: Allaire emailed regarding the physical signage blocking sidewalks during the summer festival months.
  • September 12, 2024: Allaire sent an email explicitly regarding “Open Air Accessibility.”

To have written multiple emails over several years, reviewed survey data, and drafted an official council motion regarding the event’s footprint limitations—only to now tell a voter “I do not know of these specific barriers”—is political amnesia at its worst.

When an incumbent politician pretends a well-documented barrier is brand-new information, they are avoiding accountability. The Open Air footprint—which eliminates close-proximity curb side parking and cuts off vehicle navigation—is inherently ableist. Council has known this for years, and Molly Allaire has the sent emails to prove it.

What Do You Think?

Molly Allaire’s own email history shows she was fully aware of the Open Air footprint flaws and accessibility gaps as far back as 2022. Yet, her current campaign strategy is to ask a resident to explain the problem to her all over again.

Is it acceptable for an incumbent councillor to claim ignorance on an issue they have a multi-year paper trail discussing? Let me know your thoughts and stay tuned as we continue holding candidates accountable.

Candidate Q&A Analysis: Where does Shawn LeBlanc stand on accessibility, Open Air barriers and the law?

Local election season is about looking past slogans and analyzing how candidates plan to govern. Recently, the burg watch questioned council candidate Shawn LeBlanc regarding accessibility—specifically his own campaign office and Open Air barriers.

Read the email exchanges below.

Here is a breakdown of the exchange and what it means for local voters:

1. Campaign Office Accessibility

  • The Reality: LeBlanc confirmed his campaign office is based out of his private home and is not accessible.
  • The Takeaway: For voters with mobility challenges, a candidate running an inaccessible campaign creates an immediate barrier to face-to-face democratic participation. True inclusion starts before Election Day.

2. The “Seeing is Believing” Stance vs. The Law (AODA)

  • The Reality: When pressed on the Open Air barriers—which The Burg Watch noted was the number one complaint in the Open Air residents’ survey—LeBlanc stated he was “not aware of any barriers” and that it was “hard to commit to removing” them without seeing it himself.
  • The Takeaway: In Ontario, accessibility is not a matter of a candidate’s personal observation. Under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), municipalities and local leaders have a binding legal obligation to proactively identify, remove, and prevent structural barriers in public spaces. Prioritizing personal “awareness” over documented community data risks putting a municipality out of compliance with provincial law.

3. The “One Person” Fallacy

  • The Reality: LeBlanc downplayed complaints by stating, “As of this moment I have one person telling me otherwise so I can’t comment on what I don’t know is happening.”
  • The Takeaway: Accessibility is not a popularity contest or a majority-rules issue. Under human rights frameworks and the AODA, if a single physical barrier prevents one person with a disability from equally participating in their town, a legal and moral obligation to fix it already exists. Minimizing public survey data by framing it as a solitary complaint avoids systemic accountability.

The Bottom Line:
LeBlanc expressed a strong passion for accessibility in theory, promising to “do all I can for any resident once elected.” However, there is a clear gap between promising to “be a voice” later and refusing to acknowledge documented, legally protected barriers right now.

An effective municipal leader doesn’t wait to stumble over a barrier themselves—they trust the data, they listen to the residents who live it every day, and they understand their mandatory legal duties under the AODA.

What do you think? Does a candidate need personal proof to act on accessibility issues, or should they immediately respect the AODA standards and resident surveys?

Email exchanges between the burg watch and Shawn LeBlanc:

July 23 from the burg watch: Is your campaign office accessible? Will you remove Open Air barriers that prevent people with disabilities form equally participating in the community?

July 27 LeBlanc: Hello and thank you so much for reaching out. Currently my campaign office is my own home and not currently accessible. I am not aware of any barriers that exist in open air that impact accessibility. Happy to help wherever I can.  

July 28, 2026 the burg watch: The number one complaint in the Open Air residents’ survey is accessibility. Aside from the survey, residents have called attention to the Open Air barriers for years. Now that you’ve been made aware of the barriers, will you commit to removing them so people with disabilities can equally participate in their own community?

July 28 LeBlanc: I love your passion for accessibility. As I am not aware of anyone who has ever complained about this or observed it, it’s hard for me to commit to removing any barriers. However if I see or talk to any of these residents while on the campaign I will absolutely be a voice for making sure open air along with anything in our community is accessible for all residents. 

July 28 the burg watch: Oh, but you are aware now since I provided you with the information for you to be aware. It seems paradoxical for you to say ‘it’s hard’ for you to commit to removing any barriers since you’ll have a legal obligation to do so if you’re elected but that you’ll absolutely be a voice and make sure our community is accessible.

July 28 LeBlanc: I stand by what I said. If there are barriers that are making open air inaccessible I will make sure that’s not happening. As of this moment I have one person telling me otherwise so I can’t comment on what I don’t know is happening. Rest assured I will do all I can for any resident once elected to make their voice heard. 

July 28 the burg watch: Ok. But if one person encounters a barrier, you still have an obligation to address it. Is there a number of people you have in mind before you to take action? Because if you keep saying ‘if’ there are barriers, then I have to tell you that statements like that are ableist and attitudinal barriers.

July 28 LeBlanc: You have made me aware and when I have an opportunity to do something I will absolutely address it. In fact this weekend when I am open air weekends this will be my top priority to look and see if this is an issue and I can report back. I would also meet you down there if you ever wanted to show me in person. 

July 28 the burg watch: I’ve made you aware, which is more than I am obliged to do. You are the one campaigning, so you will be the one to fulfil legal obligations. I hope you become educated enough to do that.

Jully 28 LeBlanc: I appreciate your feedback. I hope you have a great night. Thank you for the input. 

What are the candidates’ position on Open Air? Stephanie Pouget-Papak

Question: As you know, Open Air remains a contentious issue, especially because of Councillor Crain’s motion to not revisit it until the end of this term. 

Will you remove barriers that deny people with disabilities equal access to the community when streets are closed during Open Air weekends?

Stephanie POuget-Papak answer: Thank you for your patience as I work through my emails.

Open Air is a contentious issue that has left our community divided. The answer to your question is not as simple as “yes” or “no.” I have had the opportunity to experience Open Air from several different perspectives:

– As a family member: I have visited the downtown with my family and enjoyed the activities.

– As someone enjoying an evening out: I have experienced the restaurant scene with my spouse and had positive experiences.

– As a historian: I designed the Sunday Heritage Tours and led several Coffee and Culture discussions that received positive feedback from both tourists and local residents.

– As a business owner (speaking only from my own experience): I witnessed a decline in daytime visitation, difficulties for some seniors in accessing the building, and the financial impact that accompanied those challenges.

– Through an accessibility lens: Having had to learn how to walk again at age 15 following bilateral knee surgery, I understand that accessibility needs are not always visible. There are still days when I experience mobility challenges, and the lack of nearby parking had at times made it difficult for me to reach my former workplace, forcing me to work from home or take the day off. I think people sometimes forget that not everyone with accessibility needs qualifies for, or has, an accessible parking permit.

– As a citizen: I have also experienced the frustration of being unable to access side streets and becoming stuck in traffic on the main road when trying to run unexpected errands.

I have seen the benefits that Open Air brings in the evenings, particularly for our restaurants. These businesses employ many local youth and contribute to job creation in our community. In the tourism and hospitality sector, the revenue generated during peak season often helps businesses survive the slower off-season months. When businesses remain strong, they contribute to the tax base, which helps reduce pressure on residential property taxes.

This weekend I spoke with a family whose grandparent uses a wheelchair. They told me that they look forward to visiting downtown during Open Air because it helps their loved one “get out of the house” and enjoy being around people. At the same time, I recognize that not everyone has the support of a caregiver or the same ability to navigate the event comfortably.

I believe our lived experiences shape our opinions, needs, and emotions. Because of that, Open Air is unlikely ever to be an issue on which everyone agrees completely.

Would I advocate for eliminating Open Air? No. However, I also do not believe the current model fully reflects the diverse needs of our community. I think it can be improved in ways that better support accessibility while continuing to benefit businesses, tourists, and residents who enjoy the program.

Realistically, any new or long-term decision should be informed by a review of the 2026 season’s data, including attendance, economic impact, accessibility concerns, and associated costs. With that in mind, here are a few ideas worth exploring (not promises):

– Keep the same number of weekends, but limit closures to Friday and Saturday evenings, when foot traffic is highest.

– Convert Dalhousie Street to one-way traffic during Open Air, allowing one lane for restaurant patios and the other for accessible drop-off and pick-up areas, subject to safety and cost assessments.

– Reduce the overall number of Open Air weekends to create a stronger concentration of activity and demand, although this option may not adequately address the accessibility concerns being raised.

With more than 23,000 residents, we have more than 23,000 different needs and perspectives. My challenge is not to choose one group over another, but to find a balanced approach that supports accessibility, local businesses, (in this case) tourism, families, youth, elderly, and the overall well-being of the community.

I would be interested in hearing your personal experience and what specifically makes Open Air difficult for you to navigate (for example, the parking, walking, distance etc…) this could help form a better argument should the opportunity arise.

Thank you again for reaching out and sharing your concerns.

Candidates that haven’t answered yet:

Molly Allaire
Frank Cerasa