Letter by Windsor resident Neil Mens
I am writing as a concerned citizen of Windsor. I strongly support and commend the planning process undertaken by the medical community to assess community needs outlined in the 2014 dated applications Part1A+1B. I personally suggest the "Amazon Model" to create a caring and learning "campus" of adjacent or nearby buildings, rather than one mega structure. From the plans I see there is some re use and modernization of some existing structures proposed. Change is inevitable whatever you build, but it is easier to replace component/buildings over time as technology and medical research makes discoveries. Just imagine all of Toronto's hospitals in one building.
The larger purpose of my note today is to explain my thoughts as to why I do not support the current proposed location at County Road 42 and Concession 9.
I have 3 areas of concern.
1. Lack of access to Public information about the planning process for the new Windsor Regional Hospital. The committees age structure is an issue as well.
- Local Investigative journalist have carried various stories over the years which is great.
- The current committee planning for the new hospital has a very low public profile. Why was Part 1A and 1B of the application to the Ministry of Health written in 2014, but not released to the public until July 2017? Part 1 of the application speaks specifically about the vital role of community participation and buy in.
- What is the median age of your committee members who are deciding the future? What role did future generations and Millennials play to develop your conclusions?
- I cannot find a Erie - St Clair Local Health Integration Network website tab/portal for the new Hospital project.
Whether it is true or not, the process so far feels like a "Father Knows Best" - a top down or imposed approach.
2. Incomplete project parameters have resulted in flawed conclusions- The hospital planning process did not include a study of the economic impacts of the hospital relocation on the city downtown and midtown areas left behind. Over the last 50 years both the downtown Windsor and midtown commercial BIA's have less economic viability due to municipal zoning changes favouring increased suburban commercial developments on the periphery. The proposed hospital location on a greenfield site and the potentially subsequent re- location of doctors offices, medical labs services, rehab clinics, etc. to the periphery I believe will negatively impact the economic demand for existing commercial space downtown and midtown. Current Vacancy rates in both downtown Windsor and midtown are already at a tipping point. The functions of city core and midtown continued to be be hollowed. Your committee's ultimate decisions about meeting medical needs of Windsor Essex are more important than some might think. Downtown is already looking pretty rough and there are plenty of vacancies east and west along Tecumseh. Windsor needs to plan for a smaller urban footprint and revitalize their existing urban area.
3. The Location of the proposed Windsor Regional Hospital at Ct Road 42 and Concession 9 is unsustainable for present and future generations.
- Financially unsustainable through Taxes- The Proposed location does not currently have any of the needed municipal infrastructure of multi- lane roads, hydro, sewers, transit, sidewalks. The Windsor population has remained relatively stable at 218,000 though some increases are projected and hoped for. More taxes will need to be assessed to build the new infrastructure to cover a bigger area or city footprint. There is already a surtax for city sewer replacement to rebuild old sewer lines throughout the existing built up area of the city. Increasing tax obligations leaves a legacy of burden to future generations. Windsor needs a smaller planning, ecological and financial footprint not a larger one for the future generation to afford.
- Environmentally unsustainable - There did not appear to be a large enough environmental assessment component to the planning process. The proposed location is outside the current edge of the periphery of the Windsor's built up area. This location choice will increase impacts of climate change by increased fossil fuel emissions. Passenger vehicles, ambulances and service vehicle emissions will all have increased travel time, distance and fuel consumption. The proposed Location removes prime agricultural land from production when alternative serviced sites are available within the built up area of the city.
- A Greenfield Planning anomaly? Just one more field and we will stop?- Proposed greenfield hospital location does not follow 2017 Ministry of Municipal Affairs Planning Policy, Windsor's Official Plan and Windsor's Strategic Vision which together advocates for walkable, densely populated communities to create sustainable urban communities for the future. Your current committee vision on location looks more like back to the 1970"s suburban sprawl. Perhaps there are other development pressures driving this location decision about which I am not aware? It just seems illogical in 2017. The proposed location is 16 km from the flag pole on the river at the foot of Ouellette Ave which is an unrealistic 3 hour 20 minute walk from downtown, an hour and 15 minute long bus ride from the station downtown for seniors unable to drive any longer, a more expensive taxi ride and a longer ambulance ride for city residents who are injured or going to medical appointments. I forecast some people will simply choose not to go and get the medical help they needs because of the increased distance and time required.
- From a satellite image one can clearly see the Windsor Regional Airport lands are big and a barrier to city access to the proposed hospital location. Only Two roads currently serve the site at County Road 42 and Concession 9.
In summary the work of this committee will have long lasting effects on the whole region and city. Increased tax burden, negative climate change impacts and continued hollowing out of the city core and midtown make Windsor a less livable city. Windsor needs to start attracting more young Entrepreneurs, Millennials, Trades, Professionals, and new Technology to sustain and grow the population. If your committee was made up of Millennials would the same project conclusions be made? No is probable the answer as younger generations operate by different values. One has to question the validity of the committee conclusions to plan a future hospital their generation will leave as it's legacy, while future generations will have to pay for in so many ways.
For the record I am ancient at 64.
Respectfully submitted,
Neil Mens
The larger purpose of my note today is to explain my thoughts as to why I do not support the current proposed location at County Road 42 and Concession 9.
I have 3 areas of concern.
1. Lack of access to Public information about the planning process for the new Windsor Regional Hospital. The committees age structure is an issue as well.
- Local Investigative journalist have carried various stories over the years which is great.
- The current committee planning for the new hospital has a very low public profile. Why was Part 1A and 1B of the application to the Ministry of Health written in 2014, but not released to the public until July 2017? Part 1 of the application speaks specifically about the vital role of community participation and buy in.
- What is the median age of your committee members who are deciding the future? What role did future generations and Millennials play to develop your conclusions?
- I cannot find a Erie - St Clair Local Health Integration Network website tab/portal for the new Hospital project.
Whether it is true or not, the process so far feels like a "Father Knows Best" - a top down or imposed approach.
2. Incomplete project parameters have resulted in flawed conclusions- The hospital planning process did not include a study of the economic impacts of the hospital relocation on the city downtown and midtown areas left behind. Over the last 50 years both the downtown Windsor and midtown commercial BIA's have less economic viability due to municipal zoning changes favouring increased suburban commercial developments on the periphery. The proposed hospital location on a greenfield site and the potentially subsequent re- location of doctors offices, medical labs services, rehab clinics, etc. to the periphery I believe will negatively impact the economic demand for existing commercial space downtown and midtown. Current Vacancy rates in both downtown Windsor and midtown are already at a tipping point. The functions of city core and midtown continued to be be hollowed. Your committee's ultimate decisions about meeting medical needs of Windsor Essex are more important than some might think. Downtown is already looking pretty rough and there are plenty of vacancies east and west along Tecumseh. Windsor needs to plan for a smaller urban footprint and revitalize their existing urban area.
3. The Location of the proposed Windsor Regional Hospital at Ct Road 42 and Concession 9 is unsustainable for present and future generations.
- Financially unsustainable through Taxes- The Proposed location does not currently have any of the needed municipal infrastructure of multi- lane roads, hydro, sewers, transit, sidewalks. The Windsor population has remained relatively stable at 218,000 though some increases are projected and hoped for. More taxes will need to be assessed to build the new infrastructure to cover a bigger area or city footprint. There is already a surtax for city sewer replacement to rebuild old sewer lines throughout the existing built up area of the city. Increasing tax obligations leaves a legacy of burden to future generations. Windsor needs a smaller planning, ecological and financial footprint not a larger one for the future generation to afford.
- Environmentally unsustainable - There did not appear to be a large enough environmental assessment component to the planning process. The proposed location is outside the current edge of the periphery of the Windsor's built up area. This location choice will increase impacts of climate change by increased fossil fuel emissions. Passenger vehicles, ambulances and service vehicle emissions will all have increased travel time, distance and fuel consumption. The proposed Location removes prime agricultural land from production when alternative serviced sites are available within the built up area of the city.
- A Greenfield Planning anomaly? Just one more field and we will stop?- Proposed greenfield hospital location does not follow 2017 Ministry of Municipal Affairs Planning Policy, Windsor's Official Plan and Windsor's Strategic Vision which together advocates for walkable, densely populated communities to create sustainable urban communities for the future. Your current committee vision on location looks more like back to the 1970"s suburban sprawl. Perhaps there are other development pressures driving this location decision about which I am not aware? It just seems illogical in 2017. The proposed location is 16 km from the flag pole on the river at the foot of Ouellette Ave which is an unrealistic 3 hour 20 minute walk from downtown, an hour and 15 minute long bus ride from the station downtown for seniors unable to drive any longer, a more expensive taxi ride and a longer ambulance ride for city residents who are injured or going to medical appointments. I forecast some people will simply choose not to go and get the medical help they needs because of the increased distance and time required.
- From a satellite image one can clearly see the Windsor Regional Airport lands are big and a barrier to city access to the proposed hospital location. Only Two roads currently serve the site at County Road 42 and Concession 9.
In summary the work of this committee will have long lasting effects on the whole region and city. Increased tax burden, negative climate change impacts and continued hollowing out of the city core and midtown make Windsor a less livable city. Windsor needs to start attracting more young Entrepreneurs, Millennials, Trades, Professionals, and new Technology to sustain and grow the population. If your committee was made up of Millennials would the same project conclusions be made? No is probable the answer as younger generations operate by different values. One has to question the validity of the committee conclusions to plan a future hospital their generation will leave as it's legacy, while future generations will have to pay for in so many ways.
For the record I am ancient at 64.
Respectfully submitted,
Neil Mens