Tag Archives: accessibility

Open Air: Sonya Elliott on “Adjusting the White Barricades”

Posted on by
Reply

As our tracking of candidate stances on the downtown summer street closures continues, today we look at a highly revealing exchange with council candidate Sonya Elliott.

After emailing the remaining candidates on the ballot to ask if they would commit to removing the barriers that deny residents with disabilities equal access during Open Air, Elliott’s initial response was a brief, two-word reply: “Good question.” When pressed directly with a follow-up asking for her actual answer, she sent a response that exposes a misunderstanding of physical accessibility.

Elliot’s Position: Widening the Barricades for Wheelchairs

“Good morning. If by barriers you are talking about the white barricades that block the streets, I see no problem in having them adjusted so that a wheelchair could easily go around them and yet still block the traffic.”

Key takeaways from her response include:

  • A Literal Interpretation of “Barriers”: Elliott assumes that when residents with disabilities talk about “barriers” during Open Air, they are referring exclusively to the physical barricades used to close the roads.
  • The Wheelchair Workaround: Her proposed solution to making the four-month event footprint accessible is to simply widen the gap between the road-closure barricades so that a person using a wheelchair can physically bypass them on the street.

The Reality: It is difficult to overstate how concerning this response is. Elliott’s only suggestion for barrier removal is literally to slide a road barricade over a few inches to let a wheelchair squeeze past.

For many people with disabilities, their vehicle is their assistive mobility device.

The barrier of Open Air has absolutely nothing to do with whether a wheelchair can roll around a barricade. The barrier is that the entire street grid is entirely locked down to vehicles. When you ban cars from Dalhousie and its intersecting streets for 16 weeks, you immediately strip away essential curbside parking, accessible drop-off zones, and direct proximity to pharmacies, banks, and businesses.

Telling a person with a severe mobility challenge that they are welcome to roll around a barricade completely ignores the fact that they cannot even get downtown in the first place because their vehicle has been banned from the core. It treats a pedestrian-only zone as a mandatory default, and assumes that people with disabilities are perfectly capable of navigating a sprawling outdoor festival footprint on foot or by wheel—so long as the town leaves a gap in the barriers.

What Do You Think?

Sonia Elliott believes that adjusting the physical road barricades to let a wheelchair pass is a sufficient solution to the Open Air accessibility crisis.

Does this response show a fundamental failure to understand how vehicle-reliant residents navigate our town? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. .

Open Air: Bill Fryer Says “It’s Done”

Posted on by
1

As we continue tracking candidate positions on Open Air, today’s post features mayoral candidate Bill Fryer’s position on the summer street closures.

When asked about barriers surrounding Open Air, Fryer responded with a clear, direct message:

“Good morning and my response to your question and concerns that apparently have not been addressed will be taken care of as part of my plan to address all of the issues you have been fighting for, for who knows how long. Open air is a matter the entire community wants input and at this point has been a burden for many residents. I believe I have mentioned this issue a few times already.”

This aligns closely with his official campaign profile published by the River Town Times, where he went on record stating bluntly: “Open Air, as far as I’m concerned, is done.”

Fryer’s position:

  • An Unaddressed Burden: Fryer explicitly identifies the recurring summer layout as a burden for many local residents.
  • Opposing the Main Thoroughfare Closure: In his public campaign statements, he has criticized the weekly closure of a critical thoroughfare like Dalhousie Street, noting it creates severe traffic and accessibility issues.
  • A Promise for Direct Action: Fryer notes that these ongoing community concerns “will be taken care of” under his platform.

By calling the recurring closure an unaddressed “burden,” he reflects the frustration felt by residents who are locked out of their own downtown core for four months every summer.

What Do You Think?

Bill Fryer states that the weekly closure of our main artery has run its course and promises that these accessibility barriers will be taken care of under his leadership.

Do you agree with Fryer that the current Open Air footprint is an unnecessary burden on the community, or do you prefer the scaled-back compromises proposed by other candidates? Let me know in the comments.

Open Air: Dhaval Prajapati’s Pivot to “I Support Open Air”

Posted on by
Reply

As we continue tracking candidate positions on Open Air, today’s post features Dhaval Prajapati’s pivot from neutrality to endorsing closed streets.

When I originally shared Prajapati’s response to my inquiry here on the blog back in June, he took a very safe, middle-of-the-road reply. He claimed to be completely neutral, publicly telling us that it was important to “take the time to review the facts before forming a position.”

However, his campaign platform has since taken a completely different direction. After maintaining that public stance of neutrality for nearly three months, Prajapati posted an official “WHERE I STAND” declaration on his Facebook page on September 18, explicitly stating: “I like Open Air” and “I support Open Air.”

The Candidate’s Position: The Business Model and Superficial Inclusions

In his new public policy statement, Prajapati shifts entirely away from his previous “fact-finding” persona and lays out a clear plan to entrench the event by turning it into a self-sustaining business model.

Key takeaways from his updated position include:

  • Definitive Support for the Footprint: Prajapati openly praises the festival, writing: “From June to September, we close part of downtown on weekends and turn it into a pedestrian area… I like Open Air.”
  • The Fiscal Focus: His primary goal for the event is financial sustainability. He wants a full accounting of staff hours, expenses, and revenues, with the objective of securing more vendors and corporate sponsorships so that the event stops relying on taxpayer subsidies.
  • An Afterthought on Accessibility: After dedicating the majority of his platform to revenue generation, sponsorships, and vendor opportunities, he closes with a brief, single-sentence about accessibility: “I want to make it better… while also making sure accessibility, including accessible parking and access to downtown businesses, is part of the planning.”

The Reality: A Complete Reversal of Platform Promises

Prajapati’s swift pivot exposes a frustrating trend in campaigning. When a candidate tells an accessibility community publicly that they are “still learning” and “haven’t formed a position,” only to turn around months later and fully endorse the event, it breaks the trust established with voters who are looking for genuine consultation.

Furthermore, his updated platform reveals exactly where his priorities lie. Accessibility is treated as an optional checkbox to be tossed into the “future planning” phase, while the structural decision to lock down the street grid is treated as a done deal.

As a candidate, Prajapati claims he wants to ensure “access to downtown businesses,” yet he openly supports a pedestrian-only footprint that completely eliminates vehicle navigation. For residents who use their vehicles as non-negotiable assistive mobility devices, you cannot “plan” accessibility into a closed street. The closed street is the barrier. By declaring his unyielding support for a four-month vehicle ban after previously claiming he needed to study the facts, Prajapati proves that able-bodied entertainment and revenue generation remain his true priorities.

What Do You Think?

Dhaval Prajapati started his campaign by publicly stating he was neutral and looking at the facts, then turned around on September 18 and told the public he firmly supports Open Air.

How do you feel about a candidate changing their core position mid-campaign after previously committing to neutrality? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, and stay tuned as we continue to put candidate positions on the record.

Open Air: : Peter Courtney Points to Past Statements

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
1

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?

Posted on by

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. 

Mickle Park Playground – How Useable?

Posted on by

As posted in June 2023. Amherstburg’s accessibility committee ENDORSED this playground, despite the barriers.

Below is an email to Councillor Pouget and Councillor McArthur on June 12 in advance of the council meeting.

After watching the June 5 Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting, and reading some of the documents, I have some concerns regarding the recommendation to ENDORSE the playground design proposed for Warren Mickle Park’s playground redevelopment.

I’m writing to both of you because Councillor McArthur is council’s rep on the AAAC and Councillor Pouget consistently represents the interests of people with disabilities.

Ms. Heidi Baillargeon advised the AAAC an RFP resulted in three proposals that went through a Review and Scoring committee, and this was the design that was selected for installation at Warren Mickle Park. Ms. Baillargeon also advised the AAAC that it is partly a ramp structure, there are a number of accessible components, and that ‘a wheelchair can only go up to the first deck.’

It is preferable to use person first or identity first language and not refer to the assistive device alone.

How did a Review and Scoring committee approve this proposal?

What Makes a Playground Inaccessible? (aoda.ca)

  • Multilevel platforms
  • Stairs
  • Narrow walkways
  • Monkey bars
  • Bucket swings
  • Swings
  • Slides (plastic or metal)

Would someone please explain how the proposed Warren Mickle Park will be AODA compliant and inclusive if children with disabilities can’t access or use all the equipment? 

From the Parks Master Plan 2018, “It is essential that parks are inclusive and barrier-free, as guided by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). To ensure that the parks system is able to serve people from all segments of the community, accessible seating, washrooms, shade (structures and trees), parking, connections to key destinations and safety must be prominent considerations.”

While Ms. Baillargeon mentioned the CSA Z614:20, a safety standard, there was very little discussion regarding the AODA, Regulations, inclusive playground guidelines and mandatory public consultation.

The Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation of the AODA mandates public consultation as follows:

“When constructing new or redeveloping existing outdoor play spaces, obligated organizations shall consult on the needs of children and caregivers with various disabilities” and shall do so in the following manner: 

1. designated public sector organizations and large organizations must consult with the public and persons with disabilities. (emphasis added).

2. Municipalities must also consult with their municipal accessibility advisory committees, where one has been established in accordance with subsection 29 (1) or (2) of the Act. 

Outdoor play spaces, accessibility in design 

80.20 When constructing new or redeveloping existing play spaces that they intend to maintain,obligated organizations shall,

(a) incorporate accessibility features, such as sensory and active play components, for children and caregivers with various disabilities into the design of outdoor play spaces; and

(b) ensure that outdoor play spaces have a ground surface that is firm, stable and has impact attenuating properties for injury prevention and sufficient clearance to provide children and caregivers with various disabilities the ability to move through, in and around the outdoor play space. O. Reg. 413/12, s. 6.

There was also no discussion regarding the 2021 survey that no children under the age of 18 participated in. 

Will the four benches be accessible? Will the bike racks be accessible? Will there be any braille elements? Will accessible washrooms be installed? Will accessible parking spaces be available? Will accessible signage and wayfinding be installed? The concept plan 2021 included a picnic area and in answer to the question, What park amenities would you like to see at Warren Mickle Park, 50 (74.6%) said picnic table: will accessible picnic tables be installed?

Also of concern is an AAAC member’s comments regarding the slide: he could only see one problem with it – that is you put it in this park and people find out about it, they’re gonna want it in all the other parks and that means retrofitting. Then the member asked about the cost for that.

In is my understanding that AAAC members identify barriers and ‘provide advice and recommendations to Council on accessibility issues within our community’ and council makes budgetary decisions for what accessible projects it prioritizes.

What are the candidates’ position on Open Air? Saurabh Katara

Posted on by

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?

Saurabh Katara:

Thank you for reaching out and for asking this important question.

Yes—I will work to remove barriers that deny people with disabilities equal access to the community when streets are closed for Open Air. Open Air is valuable to our community, and accessibility should be part of it—not something residents have to give up for the event to work.

I’m not going to pretend I already know the exact operational solution without first understanding the barriers people are experiencing. During the campaign, I intend to speak directly with residents affected by these closures so I understand what changes would make the biggest difference.

Candidates that have not answered yet are listed below. I emphasize yet since Lena Lazanja incorrectly stated, “I would appreciate you removing my/other candidates names from a “did not respond” section.

As I informed Lazanja, I listed “candidates that haven’t answered to date.”

Candidates that haven’t answered yet:

Molly Allaire
Frank Cerasa
Stephanie Pouget-Papak

RECAP Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting July 23, 2026

Posted on by

The committee didn’t accomplish much. The only agenda item, the 2026 Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan was just to receive for information – 51 one minutes and 39 seconds until adjournment.

Chair Shirley Curson Prue rarely reads the land acknowledgement but this time she did; she usually just hands everything over to staff.

Tony Pietrangelo, current committee member and councillor candidate provided two memorable moments:

1.Pietrangelo asked if they were having internet voting.

    Council voted to continue with the costliest, most labour intensive and least accessible in person voting on September 8, 2025. 

    Had it not been for my December 2022 delegation, council would have voted back then for in person voting.

    Pietrangelo was present at the October 23, 2025 accessibility committee meeting when admin advised it of council’s in person voting decision.

    Of course, the committee moved to endorse the 2026 Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan.

    Members still seem unsure of whether to make motions. Typically, the committee limits motions to receive minutes and adjourn but not to receive updates, direct admin to report back, or to take action.

    I did delegate to the committee in 2022 and offered suggestions for the committee to be strong advocates and follow procedural rules, but they disregarded my input as usual.

    2. The second memorable moment was when Pietrangelo enthusiastically praised the National AccessAbility Week flag raising. 

      It was a performative gesture. 

      If I were to describe this event to anyone not in attendance, I’d say a small crowd gathered, Prue read a speech, and a staff member raised a flag – that’s it. 

      small crowd gathered for National AccessAbility Week flag raising at Amherstburg park in 2026.


      This minimal effort is typical of communities that lack a strong commitment to inclusion and accessibility.

      “It’s now part of our standard practices,” advised admin.

      It’s a low standard.

      The town wants to know about voting barriers – at least that’s what the committee was advised. But my input on voting barriers has been disregarded for a few elections by both council and the accessibility committee.

      Councillor Pouget’s motion on December 12, 2024 was that my submission regarding voting barriers be sent to the committee. Of course, the committee didn’t discuss my submission any more than it discussed my previous submissions or my delegations about barriers.

      The town wants more people to vote – at least that’s also what the committee was advised. But staff recommended, and council approved, the most inaccessible traditional in person voting which may limit voter turnout. 

      No one should be surprised that barriers can repress voter turnout and influence feelings of efficacy for voters with disabilities (Schur et al., Reference Schur, Ameri and Adya2017).

      Admin should have recommended a greater variety of voting methods to meet the needs of a variety of voters to increase voter turnout. It’s counterproductive to limit choices and then complain of limited results.

      Of course, council should have directed admin to report on the costs of each voting method in December 2022. 

      Very briefly, the committee mentioned a library audit.

      The library was to have been audited in January 2024. 

      An inoperable push button at the hub, future sidewalk repairs, and pickleball parking were noted.

      Almost an hour for business that could have been addressed probably within 15 minutes.

      Meeting adjourned.