Tag Archives: amherstburg

Who’s Beating A Dead Horse?

Posted on by

Council will once again consider the horse and carriage in the Navy Yard Park issue at its June 23 meeting. The agenda can be found on an external link, despite my requesting it be placed elsewhere and in another format.

In his May 20, 2014 report to council, shamefully, Dean Collver, Director of Community Services states, “Administration is recommending that horse and carriage vendors, licensed to operate as a business in the Town of Amherstburg, be permitted to enter KNYP for the purpose of special occasions tied to the park’s gazebo facility.”

Collver provides a background, although accessibility issues are blatantly missing. I raised the issue of accessibility in this letter, which makes me wonder if, once again, my concerns were ignored. I also emailed everyone on council, “I’m writing to express my disappointment with council’s actions regarding this matter, with the exception of Councillor Pouget. It is unfathomable that the parks department widened sidewalks to accommodate a business that was in violation with the town, yet I endured a ten year battle with the town to obtain equal access to the library, which, ironically, the town takes credit for in its annual accessibility plan as an accomplishment.”

Collver lists others consulted, which did not include a public hearing for public input regarding an exemption to a town by-law nor did it include members of the Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee. I let the Committee know last fall that the horses and buggy request for by-law exemption is an example of a by-law that could have been included in the plan and should have been addressed by the committee. I never received a response.

In the council approved Amherstburg multi-year accessibility plan, Mayor Hurst states, in part, “Council and Administration, along with our Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee are working together to identify, remove and prevent barriers.”

So the question is: does council intend to accept administration’s recommendation, contradict this statement and defy legislation? As I have previously mentioned, both business owners and the town are subject to the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2005.

Commentary by Linda Saxon

 

Tourist Booth Band-aid

Posted on by

During 2014 budget deliberations, council considered closing the north end tourist booth and redirecting tourists to the Gordon House, an idea that had been considered in the past. However, council subsequently agreed to $8000.00 from TWEPI (Tourism Windsor Essex Pelee Island) to cover seasonal staffing for a one-year pilot project.

Who will step in and save the booth next year, or the following years if the next council decides taxpayers can ill afford to keep it open?

Residents watched the tourist booth transform from a utilitarian centre to one that included a new fountain, gazebo, stonework planters, trees and the ridiculous two approaches to its entrance – could universal access, or one approach, have saved $8000.00?

Community Adjustment Fund (CAF) Program

As announced on January 27, 2009 as part of the government’s Economic Action Plan, the Community Adjustment Fund (CAF) is providing $1 billion across the country to help create jobs and employment opportunities in communities affected by the global recession.

According to Jeff Watson’s facebook page, “Amherstburg’s $11.265 million CAF grant was the largest in Canada and has helped the town re-invent itself after major industrial closures over the past decade. Amherstburg’s contribution was only $585,000.

We cut the ribbon on the completely reconstructed Laird Avenue in front of Wigle Park. Project components also included bus lay-by’s for General Amherst HS and new crosswalk for pedestrian and student safety, and a completely new North gateway entrance at the community’s tourism information booth.”

 

Tall Ships Not Accessible To Everyone

Posted on by

The historic Town of Amherstburg continues celebrating the bicentennial of the war of 1812 with the “Coastal Trails Sails To See Tall Ships Festival” in late August.

Promotional information is included on the town’s website, along with another site devoted to the war of 1812 events; there was no mention of accessibility so I submitted an online inquiry to ask if the tall ships were barrier free and accessible to people with disabilities.

Shortly afterward, I received an email response and was advised, “Due to the historic nature and design of Tall Ships, wheelchairs cannot be brought on board the ships. Any guest with disabilities may board a ship, as long as they can stand and walk on their own or with the assistance of a companion. For wheelchairs, the ships are available for viewing from dockside, not on-deck. In addition, there are multiple exhibits and activities that are being organized dockside, including Parks’ Canada’s 1812 On Tour and storytelling/theatrical experiences.”

Pursuant to section 5(2) of Ontario Regulation 191/11, I subsequently emailed members of town council and inquired if there was a determination that “it is not practicable to incorporate accessibility criteria and features when procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities” in relation to the tall ships and I requested an explanation if there was.

I received an email from someone who did not state his position, but I assumed he was a town employee as throughout his email he referred to a collective we and our; his response was, “Tall Ships are not, traditionally or technically, universally accessible by design. To my knowledge there is one, or possibly two, ships in the world that are specifically crafted to offer some level of accessibility. I’ve been able to find information on one:http://www.jst.org.uk/lord-nelson.aspx and read an article that indicated there was a second ship in existence but I cannot find its name. The Lord Nelson is currently sailing in the waters of Australia and New Zealand.

The Tall Ships that we have procured are part of a tour called the “Tall Ships Challenge – Great Lakes 2013” which is operated by a company known as Tall Ships America. Our opportunity to procure the Tall Ships that will be visiting us came as a result of this Tour that stretches geographically from Brockville, Ontario to Duluth, Minnesota and includes 14 ports-of-call. In essence, our opportunity to host this event was tied to the ships that are involved in this Tour as opposed to being selected based on their individual merits – whether that be universal accessibility, size, design, port-of-origin or other criteria.

Despite being unable to guarantee equivalent access to the decks of the Tall Ships visiting our ports for all potential patrons of the event, we felt that we would be able to provide opportunities for accessible viewing from shore. Our plans include a volunteer-staffed and clearly stanchioned area that will be reserved on shore in very close proximity to the ships to ensure the best possible viewing for patrons who are in need of this opportunity. Ancillary events that are part of the festival have been located to provide as much opportunity for universal accessibility as King’s Navy Yard Park allows.

As a result of this inquiry it has come to our attention that these plans and opportunities have not been included on our website describing the event – this has been, or will be, rectified immediately.

My hope is that this email offers a satisfactory explanation of not only why it was not practicable to incorporate accessibility criteria and features into the deck viewing portion of our visiting Tall Ships, but also our rationale for proceeding despite this lack and the steps we have taken to supplement event logistics to the best of our ability.”

I emailed back and mentioned there was only a reference to ‘accessible viewing’ from shore and asked what contingencies are in place for people with visual and hearing disabilities. I further relayed that information on the 1812 website relative to ‘wheelchair access’ is relegated to the last day of the event only; same for the town’s site, and there is still no alt text for jpegs on the town’s site. I mentioned that I also couldn’t find a reference anywhere to accommodating the needs of people with disabilities either visiting the town’s festivities or accessing information on the web.

Although I did not receive a response to my last email, information pertaining to wheelchair accessibility is now listed under a separate heading titled ‘additional information’ at the bottom of the site’s event page; there are still insufficient descriptors or none at all for the images, despite my numerous requests for an accessible town website over the past decade.

I do not support my taxes being used toward events that are not accessible to everyone.

Tall Ships To Visit Amherstburg, But Are They Accessible?

Posted on by

In an online feedback form submitted today I asked, “are the tall ships barrier free and accessible to people with disabilities?”  Christopher Laforet, Office Manager of Tourism Windsor Essex emailed this response, “Due to the historic nature and design of Tall Ships, wheelchairs cannot be brought on board the ships. Any guest with disabilities may board a ship, as long as they can stand and walk on their own or with the assistance of a companion. For wheelchairs, the ships are available for viewing from dockside, not on-deck.

In addition, there are multiple exhibits and activities that are being organized dockside, including Parks’ Canada’s 1812 On Tour and storytelling/theatrical experiences.”

Information relative to the tall ships’ visit to Amherstburg in late August is posted on both the town’s and the War of 1812 web sites; unfortunately, there is no text alternative to pictures on either site although numerous requests to make the town’s web site accessible to everyone have been previously made.

UPDATE: An August 23 email from Dean Collver explains why it is not practicable to incorporate accessibility criteria and features when procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities:

“Tall Ships are not, traditionally or technically, universally accessible by design. To my knowledge there is one, or possibly two, ships in the world that are specifically crafted  to offer some level of accessibility. I’ve been able to find information on one:http://www.jst.org.uk/lord-nelson.aspx and read an article that indicated there was a second ship in existence but I cannot find its name. The Lord Nelson is currently sailing in the waters of Australia and New Zealand.

The Tall Ships that we have procured are part of a tour called the “Tall Ships Challenge – Great Lakes 2013” which is operated by a company known as Tall Ships America. Our opportunity to procure the Tall Ships that will be visiting us came as a result of this Tour that stretches geographically from Brockville, Ontario to Duluth, Minnesota and includes 14 ports-of-call. In essence, our opportunity to host this event was tied to the ships that are involved in this Tour as opposed to being selected based on their individual merits – whether that be universal accessibility, size, design, port-of-origin or other criteria.

Despite being unable to guarantee equivalent access to the decks of the Tall Ships visiting our ports for all potential patrons of the event, we felt that we would be able to provide opportunities for accessible viewing from shore. Our plans include a volunteer-staffed and clearly stanchioned area that will be reserved on shore in very close proximity to the ships to ensure the best possible viewing for patrons who are in need of this opportunity. Ancillary events that are part of the festival have been located to provide as much opportunity for universal accessibility as King’s Navy Yard Park allows.

As a result of this inquiry it has come to our attention that these plans and opportunities have not been included on our website describing the event – this has been, or will be, rectified immediately.

My hope is that this email offers a satisfactory explanation of not only why it was not practicable to incorporate accessibility criteria and features into the deck viewing portion of our visiting Tall Ships, but also our rationale for proceeding despite this lack and the steps we have taken to supplement event logistics to the best of our ability.”

Councillor Davies On Her Performance

Posted on by

at the end of each year to date of this council’s term (2010 – 2014), all councillors were asked, “if any of you would care to provide a comment regarding how you think you have performed.”

at the end of year two Councillor Carolyn Davies emailed the following: (note: any spelling errors originated in Councillor Davies’ email)

“Thank you for your email  Dec 5/12.   As for your question on how do I think I have performed during the second year of my term is really not for me to answer but for the constituents to do so.  I understand that in a democracy everyone has a different view point, will interpret activities that come closest to their own understanding and needs.   As always, I am working consistently with my commitment to the consituents of Amherstburg. I want for other that which I would want for myself, fairness, justice and provide a voice to issues, if at all possible. I always look forward to what can be,   to what compromises can be made vs an either or and how we can move our community forward toward an improved quality of life and remain optimistic that a positive appoach will always provide more successful results. Regards, Carolyn Davies”

Accessibility After The Cart

Posted on by

reprinted from the Amherstburg Echo

RE: Town council to discuss bylaw exemptions to allow horse and buggy business in Navy Yard Park

With the exception of Councillor Diane Pouget, shame on council for putting accessibility after the cart. In particular, shame on Councillor Bart DiPasquale, a member of the town’s accessibility advisory committee, for not representing the rights of residents with disabilities.

After having appeared before council for the past ten years to raise accessibility issues, critique the town’s annual accessibility plan, and to question the town’s commitment to accessibility, I once again question council’s rationale for its action – the town has an obligation to ensure the safety of all its residents, including persons with disabilities and equal access to its amenities.

Randy Fasan, as a business owner, is also subject to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and its Regulations and the Ontario Human Rights Code. Will customers with disabilities be able to access his business, provide feedback in an accessible manner and will he change his website to make it accessible?

Fasan is quoted as saying, “if I have to abide by these bylaws as they stand today I am going to have to move to another town or discontinue any type of business to Amherstburg.” I’d like to know how he assumed he did not have to comply with the bylaw in the first place.

Making an amendment to exempt a business from a bylaw that has not been prosecuted while operating in violation of the bylaw for years sets a precedent for anyone to ignore any town bylaw and illustrates council’s disregard for the safety of its residents.

Linda Saxon

also published in Accessibility News

Exemptions Discussed For Horse and Buggy in Navy Yard Park

Posted on by

According to the Amherstburg Echo, Administration will meet with horse and buggy owner, Randy Fasan, to allow him to continue his business in the Navy Yard Park. Fasan acknowledged the park’s passive nature and advised that he’s “worked with the parks department for the last few years.” That work included widening of sidewalks and working on improving turns for the horses and carriage.

Will Councillor Sutton’s Motion Restore Public Trust?

Posted on by

time will tell if it’s posturing or an attempt to make real changes following the Ombudsman’s investigative findings that the town contravened the Municipal Act in its handling of several in-camera meetings in January 2011. according to the amherstburg echo, (full story), sutton believes his january 23 motion will serve as a starting point towards rectifying the damage done by the ombudsman report.

the damage was done by members of council who continued to participate in the practice, despite the Ombudman’s March 17, 2011 letter to the town, in which it stated, “In the future, Council should be vigilant in ensuring that the most appropriate exception or exceptions are cited in the resolution to proceed into closed session, and that all discussions taking place in camera fall within the cited exception(s). This ensures that the public is fully aware of why Council is proceeding into closed session, and increases the transparency of the Council process.” The letter further stated, “In the future, Council should ensure that no voting takes place during closed session, unless the vote is for a procedural matter and/or giving direction to staff, in accordance with s. 239(6) of the Act”.

sutton also mentioned that some of the errors found by the Ombudsman were clerical errors that have to be corrected; some clerical errors at the amherstburg police station had to also be corrected.

i requested an amherstburg police services board motion regarding my correspondence to the board, but i received a criminal records check of another individual that was emailed to me in error. during the course of an Information and Privacy Commission Ontario investigation, i learned that Chief Tim Berthiaume explained that the secretary scanned and attached the email and attachment without confirming the contents. Additionally, the board explained that unfortunately, it was not until my second email that the person responsible for the error understood the situation. i had emailed twice that i was not interested in any personal information but my own. in an october 28, 2011 letter, the IPC analyst advised that she was satisfied with the assurances that the board would continue to take any steps they felt appropriate to obtain my confirmation that the record had been deleted.

chief tim berthiaume sent two letters requesting that i immediately delete and confirm that it has been deleted as soon as possible. in his june 28, 2011 letter, he stated, in part, “the amherstburg police service takes privacy issues very seriously.” how ironic that my june 2011 inquiry to the board related to a breach of my information and the board decided to dismiss it; read john sutton’s letter. note: clerical errors in the letter are not mine.

it will take time to restore the public trust.  council should act as councillor pouget suggests: thank the Ombudsman, take the report seriously and take the free training – that would be a good starting point.