Tag Archives: amherstburg

Confusing Downtown Parking Signs in Amherstburg: A Disgraceful Situation

Posted on by

On Friday, June 7, I emailed CAO Critchley and copied council members.

Is this funny? this is disgraceful; the attached photo was taken yesterday. the downtown is littered with these open air signs that do not even look like they can be enforced, even if people can read the fine print. this can be extremely confusing for people with disabilities trying to park only to encounter a sign disallowing them to park in a legitimate accessible parking space.

please confirm that this particular sign will be removed.

An August 2022 post showed the contradictory signs downtown.

Parking But No Parking Signs in Amherstburg

Downtown Amherstburg signs during ‘Open Air’ weekends are confusing. This is a no parking sign in a no parking zone in front of the post office that you can’t get to anyway.

This sign contradicts itself: no parking Friday at 3 pm but you can park until 6 pm Friday. Neither has any by-law number stated.

Emergency Access Concerns Raised by Councillor Pouget in Amherstburg

Posted on by

On June 7 at 9:26 am, Councillor Pouget emailed Fire Chief Bruce Montone pertaining to concerns regarding closed streets, attached a photo and commentary by David Wharram and copied the CAO.

Please find attached a photo and comments made on the Amherstburg Residents Forum Website.  Since this article appeared, I have been bombarded with questions, regarding emergency access to our downtown streets, during the 43 days of closures.

Due to the fact, that you were tied up with an Ontario Land Tribunal Hearing for the last four (4) days, I delayed in sending my concerns to you.  It is ironic, that the OLT Hearing, involved a very contentious proposal for a boutique/hotel on this same street, dealing with fire safety concerns.

I understand you do not live in our community and the closed streets occur mostly after your working hours and on the weekends, so you might not be aware of these activities, that appear to be blocking the streets.  Due to the fact, that bollards are in place at the Dalhousie/Murray, Dalhousie/Richmond, Ramsay/Murray, Ramsay/Richmond Street intersections and tables, tents and games appear to be obstructing these roadways, I am asking for your advice, if you are aware of these issues and if you are concerned with this matter.

Perhaps, as a daughter of a volunteer Amherstburg Firefighter for 35 years and I as a member of Emergency Response Ontario for 23 years, I am very aware of the importance of emergency vehicles to have quick response times,

with unobstructed pathways.  The photo provided implies obstruction to a very busy street.  In the case of an emergency, how would our residents and tourists escape, when being blocked in with very large buildings on both sides of the street?  Would  they have to rush to the intersections of Dalhousie/Richmond or Dalhousie/Murray to escape?  What about our residents with accessibility issues? 

On another note, I am equally concerned about the Rib Fest to be held in the downtown core next weekend.  I copied you on an email on May 23rd, but I did not receive a response from you.  I am very worried about the placement of 4 large cookers on asphalt on Ramsay Street and the fact that tables will be set up in a confined space behind the Dalhousie, Ramsay, Richmond, Murray Street businesses and apartments.  What effect will this have on emergency vehicles access, when all these streets will be closed?  

Please note, that as a Councillor for the Town of Amherstburg, I am copying the Amherstburg Residents Forum to inform them, that I am asking these questions on their behalf as well as my concerns, regarding these important issues.

Photos and Commentary by David Wharram

Amherstburg Fire Department Open Air Assessment and Event Safety Guidance

Posted on by

Reposting an article from October 2021 because of ongoing safety concerns regarding closed downtown streets. Amherstburg Fire Chief Bruce Montone provided me with these documents 5 days after I requested the disclosure.

open air assessment;

Events – afd a document that is provided on occasion to event organizers should they require additional guidance.

There are no specific dates for the original 2020 or the 2021 review.

Richmond Street Corridor Sidewalk Rehabilitation Funding Debate

Posted on by

On January 29, 2024, Deputy Mayor Gibb moved and Councillor McArthur seconded a motion to prepare a tender for downtown core sidewalk repairs, to consult four advisory committees, including the Accessibility Advisory Committee Regarding Barrier Free Routes of Travel, and funding not to exceed $31,000 (excluding HST) was to come from the AODA Compliance
Reserve Fund.

On April 10, the Accessibility Advisory Committee endorsed the proposal for the maintenance but objected to using the AODA Compliance Reserve Fund and carried a motion that a reconsideration of the funding source for reduction and reassignment, by 50 percent, BE CONSIDERED by Council.

On May 13, council considered it. Deputy Mayor Gibb had a few words: I’m starting to feel a little bit uncomfortable to hear the accessibility committee talking about you know, their funding or their reserve. This is I just want to remind Council this is our job is to determine where the money is spent. You know I’m not going to oppose Councillor MacArthur’s motion because it’s it’s valid. But I don’t know the last few things I heard just kind of made the hair in the back of my neck stand up. So this is it’s it’s up to council where this money comes from. Just that’s just my opinion.

In the end, council’s flip flop and carried motion was that 50% of the funding COME FROM the AODA Compliance Reserve Fund and that the other 50% of the funding come from another source such as the tax stabilization fund for the Richmond Street Corridor sidewalk rehabilitation.

    Deputy Mayor Gibb’s Flip-Flop On Traffic Study

    Posted on by

    The short version; the detailed version follows. Deputy Mayor Gibb voted in favour of a motion, it passed unanimously, and he or Mayor Prue were to bring it up at county council ‘at the first available meeting’ (May 1); they didn’t. Instead, Gibb introduced it as a Notice of Motion at the May 15 county meeting. Meanwhile, Gibb wanted it reconsidered at the May 27 town council meeting. It was reconsidered, Councillor Crain suggested it should go to committee, which would require a motion, which failed. Councillor Pouget wondered about the motion’s wording change. Gibb made a motion to ask for a report from staff before they ask the county and that motion was defeated too. Crain made a motion to adjourn; Prue advised he could do that but that would mean this whole day didn’t happen because they have confirmatory by-laws to pass. Crain wanted to make a motion to approve confirmatory by-laws but Prue asked if there was any other new business. Councillor Allaire was acknowledged but then a motion was needed to extend the meeting past the 10:00 pm deadline because otherwise the meeting would be automatically adjourned. The motion to extend the meeting carried.

    The more detailed version is:

    April 22.
    At the April 22 council meeting, Councillor Pouget introduced a motion that carried for Mayor Prue and Deputy Mayor Gibb to ask County Council to include the Town of
    Amherstburg, when they initiate the Town of Lasalle’s Traffic Study of County Road 20,
    in particular the stretch of highway between County Road 10 intersection heading north
    to the River Canard Yacht Club.

    Councillor Pouget provided the reasons for the motion were excessive speed, unsafe conditions for motorists and pedestrians and a section of highway 20 in LaSalle has been reduced to 50 kilometers per hour to provide better safety in a housing density similar to our request.
     
    Mayor Prue passed the gavel and said LaSalle’s mayor did raise this at the last county council meeting and she cited one of the reasons for LaSalle needing a traffic study and a slowdown on highway 20 in LaSalle was all the extra traffic that is being generated out of Amherstburg. Prue took the gavel back, members voted, the motion carried and Prue said the deputy mayor or I will bring it up at the first available meeting.

    May 1.
    The first available county council meeting was May 1.

    During the May 1 County Council meeting, LaSalle Mayor Meloche read aloud her motion and mentioned Amherstburg but neither Prue nor Gibb brought forward the Amherstburg town council motion. Gibb and Prue voted in favour of the County Council motion and it carried unanimously.

    May 15.
    Gibb brought up the Notice of Motion at the May 15 County Council meeting and mentioned the April 22 Amherstburg council meeting motion and it was worded differently. Gibb said direction was given to Mayor Prue and myself to request the County of Essex conduct a traffic study for Essex County Road 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Road Three. This notice of motion is to request Essex County Council direct staff to conduct a traffic study which will investigate the effectiveness of speed reductions and other traffic calming measures to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on this section of County Road 20 is being managed as safely and efficiently as possible.

    Councillor Pouget’s motion, as recorded in the minutes is: That our Mayor and Deputy Mayor TO ASK County Council to include the Town of Amherstburg, when they initiate the Town of Lasalle’s Traffic Study of County Road 20, Town of Amherstburg – Regular Council Meeting in particular, the stretch of highway between County Road 10 intersection heading north
    to the River Canard Yacht Club.

    May 27.
    At the May 27 town council meeting, Gibb introduced a reconsideration of the April 22 motion that he and Prue were to bring up at the ‘first available meeting’ which was May 1 and a lengthy discussion followed.

    Gibb explained his reason for the reconsideration was because he was concerned they were going to cede control of what happens to that road to the county. (this is confusing since it is a county road). He asked a few what if questions:

    • what if the county wants to change the speed limit to 50 kilometres an hour?
    • How is that going to affect companies like Diageo?
    • How is that going to change traffic patterns and have people move from County Road 20 perhaps onto our concession roads that that aren’t prepared for that kind of traffic?
    • How is that going to affect the commuting time of 1000s of people who commute on that road every day?

      He felt in their haste they may have opened themselves up to something that an upper level of government is going to force upon them before they’ve had a chance to discuss it amongst themselves. (But the chance to discuss it was on April 22 during the town council meeting).

    The vote to reconsider carried.

    Gibb thought they needed a ‘sober second thought’ and wanted to get a report from staff so they know what they’re getting into before it’s too late. (But wouldn’t county staff conclude their traffic study with a report to county council?)

    Councillor Pouget pointed out the unanimous April 22 motion and asked if Gibb hadn’t introduced the Notice of Motion that town council directed him to do in over a month.

    Gibb answered that the motion was introduced at the last county council meeting and then would be discussed at the next county council meeting.

    Pouget asked if Gibb was suggesting that this council passed this motion unanimously, he introduced it, didn’t introduce it when he should have the first meeting, skipped a meeting and then introduced it then and now go back to them and say maybe you don’t have to do that. Gibb said he generally doesn’t speak with that voice and that is categorically false what you’re saying.

    Prue called for calm because it was getting late (that’s what happens when meetings are inefficient). and he summarized: What has happened is that the deputy mayor issued the notice, he’s having second thoughts and wants to know council’s position. If Council doesn’t want to change its position that’s well within council’s right. If Council is happy then it just goes to the county and the county makes the decision. That’s what’s going to happen. There will be debate, and I will assure you if the debate goes forward, I will raise the same issues and I’m sure the deputy mayor will raise the issues that we would like to be consulted down through the process because we are a little afraid if it goes from 70 and 80 kilometres to much lower that it may have ramifications on our concession roads.

    The April 22 motion was back on the table and was read aloud: That our mayor and deputy mayor to ask county council to include the town of Amherstburg when they initiate LaSalle’s traffic study of County Road 20 in particular the stretch of highway between county road 10 intersection heading north to the River Canard Yacht Club.

    CAO Critchley emphasized the importance of being consulted.

    Councillor Crain thought it might be appropriate to have the economic development committee review the suggested idea to change the speed limit and Prue advised that would require a motion to amend the original one. The motion failed.

    Pouget noted a discussion regarding adding Texas Road.

    Gibb said they have a Doctorate in traffic studies on town staff and asked that they maybe get a report and he would prefer a report from staff. Gibb made the motion to get a report from staff before they ask the county to make any changes and said if that fails, then he’s done.

    Crain wanted to make a motion to adjourn. Prue said he could but if you do it, it means this whole day didn’t happen because they have confirmatory by-laws. Crain moved to approve confirmatory by-laws but Prue asked if there was any other new business. Councillor Allaire was acknowledged but they needed a motion to continue before 10:00 pm when they’re automatically adjourned.

    June 5. County Council Agenda 15.2 Traffic Study for Essex County Road 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Road 3

    Chris Gibb brought forward the following Notice of Motion at the May 15, 2024 meeting of Essex County Council:

    At the April 22, 2024 meeting of Amherstburg Town council direction was given to Mayor Prue and Deputy Mayor Gibb to request the County of Essex conduct a traffic study for Essex County Road 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Rd 3. 

    This notice of motion is to request Essex County Council direct staff to conduct a traffic study which will investigate the effectiveness of speed reductions and other traffic calming measures to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on this section of County Rd 20 is being managed as safely and efficiently as possible.

    Recommendation:That Essex County Council direct staff to conduct a traffic study which will investigate the effectiveness of speed reductions and other traffic calming measures to ensure that both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on County Rd 20 from Texas Road to Essex County Road 3 is being managed as safely and efficiently as possible.

    Promoting Inclusive Community: A Call to Action for Council Members

    Posted on by

    My delegation at last night’s council meeting as a person with disabilities, as a representative of residents who reached out to me with their concerns, and on behalf of the Amherstburg Residents Forum, regarding the adverse effect on the disability community of the closing of Murray Street was met with apathy.

    Not that it ill have any more effect on council than mentioning, during last night’s delegation, the AODA and the UN Convention On The Rights of Persons With Disabilities, but I emailed council members anyway.

    The lack of decorum at last night’s meeting was appalling. I urge you to update the procedural by-law to include a time limit on your speeches, a limit on the number of times you can speak, and a limit on the number of questions to admin. Other municipalities do it and I know you rely on comparators sometimes. Also, a meeting of council is where you, as decision-makers, debate the issues yet admin are invited to participate in debates.

    I also urge you to post the council and committee meeting videos to youtube which is a good transparency initiative that other municipalities do.

    it’s very disappointing, especially during National AccessAbility Week, that the town is promoting a flag raising or wearing red shirts while votes in favour of closing off yet another public space adversely affects people with disabilities. Shame on you. 

    in my opinion, it’s hypocritical to promote anything that may appear as tokenism. we already have plenty of awareness. what we need is a stronger commitment to ensuring we live in an inclusive community, free of discrimination and free of barriers that prevent our human right to equally participate. we need to ensure that we people with disabilities stop encountering attitudinal barriers and ableism. we need elected officials to take a stand and not vote in favour of barriers or spend taxpayer dollars on barriers.

    we also need people to realize that input from residents like me, with disabilities, should be welcomed; it should not be met with examples like the attached. chris drew, an accessibility advisory committee member posted this yesterday to the town’s facebook page.

    Screenshot

    Kingsbridge Sidewalks: Accessibility and Inspection Inquiries

    Posted on by

    A reader reached out and I said I’d make inquiries, which I did yesterday. I sent the following questions to CAO Critchley and specifically mentioned I was making inquiries for my blog; I copied members of council.

    1. what accessibility legislation/standard/guidelines/criteria were used for the newest sidewalks in Kingsbridge on Whelan for the tendering process?
    2. what is the reason for the elevation changes at driveways? 
    3. who was responsible for inspection upon completion?
    4. was the inspection upon completion satisfactory/dissatisfactory?
    5. was public consultation held?
    6. did any member of council visit the area of concern?
    7. did any member of staff visit the area of concern?
    8. what is the process to file a claim with the town for damage to assistive devices as a result of this situation?

    I thought they were all generic questions but CAO Critchley’s response was, “As your email seems to indicate that the information you are seeking is connected to a possible insurance claim against the Town, we are unable to comment at this time. Should someone wish to file a damage claim, this can be down through the Municipal Clerk’s Office. (original typo).

    I thanked her but wrote back that perhaps she would answer all the other questions.

    Amherstburg Accessibility Advisory Committee’s Motion vs. Administration Report

    Posted on by

    Will council agree with its Accessibility Advisory Committee’s (AAAC) motion that this is not just about accessibility or with an administration report to council that accessibility funding should be used?

    I shared my concerns with Councillor McArthur, council’s rep to the Committee, and Councillor Pouget who attended the AAAC meeting when the discussion occurred.

    1. Shouldn’t rest areas be more important than more planters?

      In my January email, I urged council to embrace the spirit of the AODA and consult the public regarding Richmond Street sidewalk repairs even though the report to council did not mention public consultation in accordance with the AODA’s Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation regarding exterior paths of travel, rest areas:

    ‘Designated public sectors when constructing new or redeveloping existing exterior paths of travel that they intend to maintain, shall consult on the design and placement of rest areas along the exterior path of travel and shall do so in the following manner: 

    1. the public and persons with disabilities.
    2. a municipal accessibility advisory committee if one exits.’
    3. Why use AODA Compliance Reserve Fund?

    The January 29 administration report recommended using funds accrued within the accessibility compliance reserve fund which are intended for repairs and improvements designed to reduce or remove barriers and promote greater access to public spaces, goods and services.

    The May 13 administration report states the AODA compliance reserve fund was introduced in 2017 as an annual contribution to the reserves of the town of Amherstburg for municipal building and infrastructure improvements to eliminate barriers with regards to accessibility.

    The August 2016 Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes indicate the motion that administration develop a policy that the committee reviews and edits to ensure the town is promoting accessibility in the strategic plan and ask that $50,000 a year starting in the 2017 annual capital budget be set aside for promoting accessibility in public buildings. 

    • Which recommendation should prevail?

    The Accessibility Advisory Committee’s April 10 motion, following concerns that AODA Compliance Funds were to be used for the Richmond St. sidewalk repairs, was that council consider the reconsideration of the funding source for reduction by 50%. 

    The clerk advised the committee that his professional recommendation to council would be to use that fund because that is why that fund was created.

    • What type of motion is required?

    At the April 10 committee meeting, Councillor McArthur asked, couldn’t council in that very meeting make a motion to reconsider it and then either Council says yes to 50% or no to 50% but it could proceed on the same timeline? 

    The clerk answered that yes, if the motion was carefully worded, where it asked for the funding consideration to be reviewed, he didn’t think there would be any reason why they couldn’t be shifted after they were already spent. If for example, it was 31,000 drawn out of the reserve but this recommendation was that it shouldn’t be funded from this reserve then Council could pull the funds from another reserve to replenish that; they do journal entries all the time.

    The clerk repeated that if the committee wished to have council look at that and fund it from a different source if it was worded right the project could continue.

    Councillor Donald McArthur stated if the committee is comfortable with 50% he’d happily go to council and ask them to reconsider the funding source. 

    The May report to council addresses a reconsideration. ‘It is debatable whether such a motion would be permissible though, as portions of the original motion which would be the subject of the reconsideration have already been acted upon, and as such, are not open to be reconsidered. The reconsideration of the funding source would need to be considered outside of the reconsideration on the consultation and/or whether the works should be undertaken. A less procedurally fraught motion would be to cause $16,000 worth of funding to be redirected to the AODA Compliance Reserve fund, from another funding source to offset the associated costs. That said, such a motion is not recommended by Administration as funding this $16,000 from another reserve creates a need to identify $16,000 of unbudgeted and unplanned expense which may have adverse impacts on other projects.’

    Didn’t council approve $450,000. of unbudgeted and unplanned expense for pickleball?

    Preferential Treatment Of Delegates

    Posted on by

    The April 22 council meeting seemed typical: Prue passing the gavel, speeches guised as questions, confusion about whether motions were made, the difference between notices of motions and motions, personal anecdotes, windbaggery, and Deputy Mayor Gibb’s refusal to allow an audience member wanting to speak. I expected once again Councillor Crain would be the one to object. But what stood out was the preferential treatment of delegate Linda DiPasquale, who spoke for 8 minutes and 40 seconds. At no time did the mayor stop her after the procedural by-law mandatory 5 minute limit and ask for a motion to continue as required.

    This wasn’t the first time a delegate was welcome to exceed the time limit. The Amherstburg Soccer Club’s delegation at council’s March 14, 2022 meeting was 18 minutes, followed by a 48 minute question and answer session with members of council and staff for a total of 66 minutes.

    Open Air Approved/Not Approved

    Posted on by

    Open Air was approved during budget, according to Deputy Mayor Gibb, but Councillor Pouget stated it was not approved. Where’s the motion?

    On March 26, the day after the March 25 council meeting discussion of Open Air, I requested the information below from CAO Critchley, who answered on Saturday during the long weekend, noted in blue after each request.

    1. council’s motion to approve Open Air for 2024. 
      All motions were referenced in the report that went to Council on March 25, 2024, a copy of which can be found on the Town website.
    2. the cost of open air for 2023. 
      This information is contained in the presentation  made by the Director of Development/Deputy CAO at the Council Meeting of March 25, 2024, which presentation will be attached to the Minutes of this meeting. The Minutes of the meeting will be available on the website once approved by Council.
    3. what undue hardship the town would endure if open air ended. 
      As the words used in this question have a particular meaning in law, I will refrain from answering it in this venue.
    4. any documentation that administration included the exclusion of people with disabilities as a risk in an open air risk analysis. 
      The footprint for Open Air was reviewed by the Accessibility Advisory Committee in December 2023. The minutes of that meeting are also available on the website.

      I emailed back: Question 3 does have meaning in law but that shouldn’t prevent you from answering it; you didn’t answer question 4 which should be yes or no and if yes, include documentation. I didn’t ask about the accessibility committee that, as everyone should be aware, cannot speak on behalf of council or administration. I specifically asked about administration.