Tag Archives: amherstburg

Repeating Request For Patio Policy

Posted on by

While council will discuss temporary patio user fees at its February 24, 2025 meeting, it has yet to enact a patio policy, despite my emailing council and/or delegating about it seven times to ensure AODA compliance. I even provided resources.

So, for an eighth time, I’ve emailed council but this time I reminded them of their promises by Mayor Prue during the January 27, 2025 council meeting:

“this town has not been compliant. And I have promised, as mayor, and the council has promised, that we will hence for hence forward, going forward, always be AOD compliant. And I want people to know that the those who have disabilities have every right to use every one of the services in this town, the same as everyone else.”

I also quote the Municipal Act, section 14 (1):

A by-law is without effect to the extent of any conflict with,
(a) a provincial or federal Act or a regulation made under such an Act; or
(b) an instrument of a legislative nature, including an order, licence or approval, made or issued under a provincial or federal Act or regulation.  2001, c. 25, s. 14.

I also reminded them about Prue’s October 15, 2024 comment: “I am sorry that some people are not getting out of the way when someone comes by with a cane or a walker or a wheelchair, but what difference would it make if there was two cars there instead of the patio? If they won’t get out of the way on the sidewalk, they won’t get out of the way. And so I think that this is a business case has been made, and I do believe that is in the best interest of the town to be a welcoming and friendly place for people to sit out and have a meal in the sun. So I, will not be supporting the motion.”

I advised them that many municipalities have enacted patio policies that include AODA compliance and barrier removal and asked, will you keep your promises to do the same?

This council has proven how business friendly it is. Making a strong commitment to removing barriers and being AODA compliant is long overdue.

Amherstburg’s OPP Costing Controversy Explained

Posted on by

Revised from a 2018 blog post.

An RTT article, OPP Does Not Give Police Costing to Amherstburg, quoted Mayor DiCarlo, “Instead of getting a costing from the OPP, we got a letter saying they are not going to follow our guidelines.” The OPP “basically said no” when asked for the details the town wanted, said DiCarlo. He said it was “incredibly disappointing” the OPP didn’t want to work with the town’s guidelines, adding it was also “very frustrating” that while Windsor was willing the OPP “couldn’t be bothered.”

A September 14, 2017 letter from the OPP is addressed to Mayor Aldo DiCarlo.

Rather than indicate an unwillingness to follow the town’s guidelines, the OPP reiterated “the OPP utilizes the Information Manual for the OPP Contract Proposal Process for all contract proposals” and explained, “the process prescribed in your Request for Proposal differs in significant ways from the process described in our manual. As a result, the OPP cannot participate in your Request for Proposal.”

The OPP also stated, “we have made several attempts to schedule an information session to explain to your Council the OPP contract proposal process. Since we have not been provided with the opportunity to do so, we recommend that you and your Council familiarize yourself with the Information Manual, as it outlines all the steps involved in the contract proposal process.”

The OPP required a council resolution by September 30, 2017 if it wished to proceed.

The town confirmed that the September 14, 2017 letter from the OPP to Mayor Aldo DiCarlo was presented five months later to council at its February 26, 2018 meeting when a decision was made to contract Windsor Police.

Therefore, I disagree with the mayor’s position and submit the town did not follow the OPP costing process. How incredibly disappointing.

Windsor Police Contract Controversy: A Call for OPP Costing

Posted on by

I emailed this to council: I am very concerned about Mayor Prue’s comments in the Windsor Star article re Windsor wanting to end the policing contract.

Prue is quoted as saying, “Council is going to have to look at all the options available to us,” he said. “We’re hoping that our CAO (chief administrative officer Valerie Critchley) can talk to the CAO (Joe Mancina) of Windsor and see if there’s anything that can be done. “And if not, then we have other options we’re going to have to explore.”

Council should first be exploring ALL options and then making a decision. Two previous council’s motions to obtain an OPP costing were never rescinded but also were not fulfilled which was a disservice to the taxpayers. Compared to savings of $1,742,205. over 5 years with Windsor, savings of around $10 million with the OPP would’ve been significant. 

Council’s December 5, 2022 recommendation and subsequent council motion was to extend the Windsor Police contract deadline to renew to March 31, 2023 so public consultations could be held.

No public consultations were held.

Then on February 8, 2023, council moved to direct the CAO to exercise the renewal clause in the contract for a five year period commencing January 1, 2024 to end December 31, 2028. 

During the February 8 meeting, Deputy Mayor Gibb stated there’s a significant cost difference to the OPP of around $2 million a year and he even provided me with the documents to support his statement.

I am requesting council to fulfill its fiduciary duty and obtain an OPP costing.

Michael Prue Then And Now – The AODA

Posted on by

Almost twenty years ago Michael Prue voted in favour of the AODA. In 2022, one of Prue’s campaign priorities was, ‘Ensure all town buildings are accessible to facilitate an open and inclusive municipality.’ Then in 2023 he declared in this town we have not brought it into force, while he also was quoted as saying the first dog park opening in Amherstburg, ‘reflects our commitment to creating a vibrant and inclusive community for all residents, including our beloved canine companions.’

Then-MPP Michael Prue stood in the legislature on May 10, 2005 to vote in favour of Bill 118, the AODA. Watch the moment at 4:26 into the video.

Mayor Micheal Prue declared we have not brought it into force during a May 23, 2023 Amherstburg Council Meeting. Listen to the audio.

Unofficial transcript:

2025 we’re going to have to make everything accessible in this town, that’s the law. I was in the legislature 20 something years ago, and I spoke to this issue when the bill was presented in the legislature, and I scoffed at them. I scoffed at the liberals who were standing up waving this piece of paper around, saying we’re going to be accessible, because it could take 25 years to bring it into force. Well, in this town, we have not brought it into force. 

Related: Prue on the Gordon House inaccessibility.

Open Air Opinion

Posted on by

The Windsor Star published my letter to the editor about Open Air on December 22, in response to a December 5 article, but it altered and deleted some content.

The article, Amherstburg keeps ‘controversial’ Open Air festival at 14 weekends mentioned that the administrative report “pointed to some businesses and demographics — particularly seniors and those with limited mobility — being heavily impacted by the festival, something highlighted by Pouget and Coun. Molly Allaire.”

The only impact I found mentioned in the report is the economic impact with a separate appendix that lists the economic impact; Total Visitors’ Spending $4,286,991

Comments deleted:

  • the part where I stated that I couldn’t find any mention in the report of seniors and ‘those with limited mobility’ being heavily impacted, nor could I find it being highlighted by Allaire; it was only Councillor Pouget that addressed the accessibility issue.
  • The number one complaint in the residents’ survey was accessibility so it’s pointless to tout closed streets as a family event if children with disabilities are excluded from accessing play areas.
  • Members of council that campaigned in favour of Open Air refuse to change their positions despite the negative impacts on some residents and businesses. I disagree with Mayor Prue that ‘this is a great thing that is happening in the town.’ Prue has bragged that he was in the legislature when the AODA was passed but declared last year that in this town we have not brought it into force. What are we waiting for?

Councillor Crain’s Accessibility Commitment

Posted on by

Following the 2022 election, I asked Crain the following questions. He answered. Then at some point he blocked me. I asked him why but didn’t get an answer. Actions do speak louder than words because he hasn’t always remained ‘available to address concerns any resident faces in the Town of Amherstburg.’

of the accessibility information the town provided to you for your campaign, which did you read?

I read all election material provided by the Town throughout my campaign, including any information pertaining to the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.

what trainings have you participated in for accessibility legislation, for example, as an employee, volunteer, etc.?

Both the Town of Amherstburg and the County of Essex members of Council have received training on accessibility. I have also been advised that Administration will be doing a special session on accessibility in the first quarter of 2023.

how will you fulfill the obligation to remove barriers?

  • Continue an open dialogue with the Town’s Accessibility Advisory Committee.
  • Follow regulations outlined in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. 
  • Always remain available to address concerns any resident faces in the Town of Amherstburg.
  • Work closely with Town Administration to establish procedures and measures that ensure those with disabilities have the opportunity to experience all our community has to offer.

Majority Rules – Right Or Wrong?

Posted on by

Jack Edwards told Councillor Pouget that ‘the majority has to rule on this’ during the Open Air Report discussion at the November 21 Economic Development Advisory Committee Meeting.

And we frequently see the 4 votes at council meetings.

The following article is reprinted with permission of the author, Registered Parliamentarian Eli Mina.

Is the majority always right?

During a coffee break at a training session, a newly elected municipal official spoke to me
privately and said this: A wise person taught me that with a council of seven members, the most important number is four. With four votes you can change policy. With four votes you can
provide exceptional leadership. With four votes you are at liberty to govern however you wish.
After all, the majority is always right. What do you think about these words of wisdom?

On the surface, what he said sounded correct. After all, in parliamentary democracies, a basic
principle of decision making is that the majority rules. In order to adopt a proposal or enforce a
measure, a voting body requires that more members vote yes than vote no. If not, the motion is
defeated. With this in mind, the numbers are ultimately the only thing that matter. Right?

Not so fast. Something significant is missing with this logic.

Here is the problem: Have you ever observed an aggressive and impatient majority forcing its
will on a helpless minority by cutting off debate prematurely? Ever witnessed a majority being
stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to tolerate new data that might lead to enlightened and
thoughtful decisions? In such cases, there may very well be enough votes in the affirmative, but
this does not change the fact that the decision-making process is flawed; possibly leading to
flawed decisions that the majority, the minority, and the community, will regret.

Yes, the numbers are important. But if the group focuses exclusively on the number of votes, it
may be making its collective decisions on the basis of ignorance, self interest, and loud and
aggressive voices, instead of making them on the basis of objectivity, full knowledge, and a
careful analysis of the issues at hand.

With numbers-based democracies, the end—getting enough votes—justifies the means, which
may prompt some people to make pre-meeting deals on how they’ll vote. On the other hand,
with knowledge-based democracies, members refuse to commit their votes in advance of a
meeting. Instead, they arrive at meetings with fully open minds, listen to and learn from
everyone, and treat minorities as partners in decision making.

With numbers-based democracies, assertive and persuasive advocates tend to prevail. With
knowledge-based democracies, the individuals with the most relevant information and the most
astute and compelling analysis are listened to. The group has a culture that promotes learning,
inquiry and excellence in decision making.

Ultimately, numbers-based democracies are more likely to produce flawed and risk-prone
decisions. On the other hand, knowledge-based democracies are more likely to produce
informed decisions that increase opportunities and minimize risks for affected organizations.

The Impact of Open Air Events On Vulnerable Groups

Posted on by

Letter to the editor in response to the November 27 RTT articles.

Some of the comments during the delegation, committee and council meetings are appalling.

Carolyn Davies claimed that people can get out and enjoy the event and not be at home isolating from each other, something she said has positive mental health benefits. However, seniors and people with disabilities who can’t equally participate remain socially isolated, which can negatively impact their mental health and well-being. 

Although Ms. Davies mentioned that Open Air has been positive for her bed and breakfast, since she confirmed she has no accessible rooms, again, people with disabilities can’t equally participate. 

The suggestions that businesses should get creative or just adapt are dismissive and disrespectful; the negative impacts should not be minimalized.

Councillor McArthur stated how families come together, and he didn’t want to take that away from people. Yet children with disabilities that can’t equally access play areas can’t come together with families, so they have that opportunity taken from them.

Deputy Mayor Gibb said it is heartbreaking for him to see council unable to “get away from these entrenched positions” but it’s within his power to change his position. For me, it’s heartbreaking to see barriers in the community perpetuated and not removed so everyone in the community can equally participate in all aspects of community life.

As for the surveys, the number one complaint in the 2023 residents’ survey was accessibility, another concern that was overlooked and will continue every year for fourteen weekends until ingrained attitudes change. No one should claim we are an inclusive community if seniors and people with disabilities remain marginalized.

So much of the enthusiasm seems to be based on what are deemed to be positive impacts while disregarding the negative effects: it’s good for businesses, but not those that endure financial hardships; it’s good for people, but not if they are denied equal opportunities; and it’s good for the economy, but only for the businesses that profit.  

Instead of dismissing the so-called ‘naysayers’ that can’t share the hype, council should have drawn up an action plan to alleviate the hardships, exclusion and isolation that Open Air generates. 

Council’s Role in Accessibility: A Call for Action

Posted on by

Concerns that customers of the Salty Dog were impeding sidewalks, including people using assistive devices, were raised at the October 15 council meeting.

Following the meeting, I emailed council members: some of your comments during the October 15 meeting are concerning: 

  • ‘it’s good for the residents,’ 
  • it’s in the best interest of the town,’
  • ‘it’s AODA compliant because there are no trip hazards’,
  • ‘I am sorry that some people are not getting out of the way when someone comes by with a cane or a walker or a wheelchair, but what difference would it make if there was two cars there instead of the patio?’
  • ‘It’s two parking spots, or maybe a little bit more, there’s definitely not a parking issue downtown.’ 

there are barriers at the Salty Dog patio and there are trip hazards so if barriers exclude people with disabilities then it’s not good for the residents and it’s not in the best interest of the town. i’ve asked council to create a patio policy to ensure all patios are AODA compliant and i still encourage you to create one.

also, as i’ve pointed out a few times, businesses with barriers may face human rights complaints. in fact, two downtown businesses are currently facing human rights complaints.

thank you Councillor Pouget for acknowledging the right of people with disabilities to equally participate in our community.

As usual, Councillor Pouget was the only one to respond; she thanked me for promoting all accessibility issues in our Town and said she’d do whatever she could to help.

November 4, I emailed a follow up to council and shared one resource: since you’ve not yet enacted a patio policy, like other municipalities, i still urge you to do so. there is an abundance of best practices in other municipalities, along with the AODA standards to address barriers that continue to exist. why are you not addressing them?

for example, at a minimum, the Ontario Traffic Council’s Restaurant Patio Guidelines within the Right of Way ‘was created for the benefit of those road authorities who have not developed their own guidelines and as a supplementary resource to those road authorities who have developed their guidelines but are seeking additional guidance on the topics outlined herein.’

‘The intention of applying these guidelines is to ensure that universal accessibility, public safety and the streetscape experience are enhanced and not negatively impacted by the introduction of a patio within the road authorities’ right-of-way.’

7.1 Accessible Routes

Accessible routes must be provided through the patio area, as follows:

1)  The pedestrian clearway requires 1.8 metres of space on most sidewalks, with wider sidewalks with higher pedestrian volumes requiring 2.5 metres.
2)  To ensure the patio area does not impose a change in the direction of the pedestrian clearway of more than 20 degrees, the patio operator should use a tape measure and something to mark measurement points (pylons, chalk marks, etc.) to verify that this requirement is being adhered to
3)  The patio operator must provide accessible access to the patio with a minimum width of 1.8 metres.
4)  Accessible access can be achieved through two methods, installation of a temporary platform or a temporary accessibility ramp. It is the patio operator’s responsibility to comply with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) at all times.
5)  The patio operator:
i)  Must not place patio materials in the pedestrian clearway.
ii) Must ensure the patio’s perimeter fencing has a solid base that is detectable for someone using a white cane.
iii)  Must not use the pedestrian clearway to queue patrons awaiting their reservation or table.
iv)  Must not place A-frame signs or other obstacles in the pedestrian clearway.

Salty Dog Patio Accessibility Issues

Posted on by

Comments by some members of council about accessibility at the Salty Dog patio during the October 15 meeting were concerning.

Councillor McArthur stated, in part, overwhelmingly, people love the Salty Dog patio. They love the environment that it creates in downtown Amherstburg, and it’s good for the economy. It’s good for business, but over and above everything else, it’s good for the residents of Amherstburg and that’s why I support it.

the burg watch: McArthur shouldn’t be supporting it because he’s council’s rep to the accessibility committee and the patio has barriers. Saying it’s good for the residents, while it’s not accessible to some residents with disabilities, is unacceptable.

Councillor Courtney stated, in part, it was AODA compliant, because there was no trip hazards, and was wide enough to get in.

the burg watch: There are trip hazards.

Mayor Prue stated, in part, the Salty Dog acted in good faith and continues to act in good faith. The staff went out and acted in good faith and obeyed every single caveat of the province of Ontario and every single bylaw that we have. I am sorry that some people are not getting out of the way when someone comes by with a cane or a walker or a wheelchair, but what difference would it make if there was two cars there instead of the patio? If they won’t get out of the way on the sidewalk, they won’t get out of the way. And so I think a business case has been made, and I do believe that is in the best interest of the town to be a welcoming and friendly place for people to sit out and have a meal in the sun.

the burg watch: an apology that people are not getting out of the way provides no meaningful action to correct the barriers to people with disabilities. The town cannot be a welcoming and friendly place if people with disabilities are not welcome to equally participate in activities. Thus, it is not in the best interest of the town.

Deputy Mayor Gibb: I mean, I just I don’t understand what the issue is. Two parking spots out of 500 you know what? I don’t think there’s a that big of a problem parking in downtown Amherstburg, the extra revenue, the extra jobs it brings.

the burg watch: I’d recommend more training. the number one complaint in the residents’ Open Air survey was accessibility, followed by parking. Council still needs to address the issue.

Councillor Crain stated, in part, it’s two parking spots, or maybe a little bit more, there’s definitely not a parking issue downtown.

the burg watch: again, the number one complaint in the residents’ Open Air survey was accessibility, followed by parking. Council still needs to address the issue.

The AODA aims to remove barriers. I have asked that council create a patio policy to ensure AODA compliance but no such policy has been implemented yet.