By Harold G. LeBoeuf - Windsor, Ontario
 |
| Parks Department installing 1.5 acres of pavement in Willistead Park |
To all City Councillors and concerned citizens of Windsor,
RE: The proposed changes to the Public
Willistead Heritage Park
It is not too late for the
members of City Council to reconsider their decision in this matter and they
should once the underlying reasons for
the proposed changes are known. There are times when Council is duped into
acting on nefarious proposals because the facts are not known. This is one of
those times, and it is within the powers of Council to rectify the matter. I
believe that Council has moral and legal obligations to the citizens of
Windsor, to ensure that the trust and authority of the officers holding
positions in the Municipal organization is held to an absolute high standard,
and that any use of Windsor tax payer funds must be for the actual benefit of
the general population, and not to satisfy schemes of private individuals or
organizations.
Unless
the seven members of Council. who voted in favour of the proposal, were
willfully blind to the true underlying facts behind the project, I can’t find
fault with them for how they voted per se,
but I am distressed that they have made their decision not enquiring as to the
reasons why the plan was designed by the Department of Parks and Recreation,
and the purpose of the design by the members of the Board of Willistead Manor
(hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). Councillor Alan Halberstadt, who is
also a member of the Board, knew of the basic tenets of the plan, and had the
courage of his convictions to vote against the proposal, as did two of his
fellow Councillors, Al Maghnieh, and Irek Kusmierczyk.
The
true purpose of the project was never presented to Council. The presentations
to Council were primarily made by John Miceli, the city’s executive director of
the Department of Parks and Recreation, under whose auspices the project was
developed. He made certain that the “purpose” was always presented in
altruistic terms: “for the enhancement of the park; to conduct maintenance”
and, on a much later date, “to enable persons with physical handicaps to have
access and enjoy the park as well.” In
addition, Mr. Miceli, took the position that the ten foot wide roadways were
designed to enable his department to complete maintenance and repairs to the
area. What he didn’t tell Council or the public was that the purpose of the
roadways was to facilitate the trucks and trailers of vendors for
“Art-In-The-Park” to unload their wares, set up and remove their tents. The
cost of these changes were to be made at a cost of $400,000.00, for which, when
questioned in other forums, he stated that he was not in possession of any
estimates because his department doesn't enter into contracts with those hired
to do the work; it’s on a “pay-as-you-go” basis. Nor was he in possession of
any estimates for the cost of constructing narrower roadways using paver
stones. And yet, he confidently stated such a cost would be between $85,000.00
and $125,000.00.
At
first blush, his statements are incredulous. Surely the project was put out for
tenders; if not, why not? Surely he received written estimates from contractors
to perform the work; if not, why not? If his department didn't do any of these
things, how does he know the cost will be $400,000.00? Without estimates, how does
he know that the cost of paver stones would cost between $85,000.00 and
$125,000.00? Without any of these procedures taking place, to whom and how was
a contractor decided upon and given the work? Where is the accountability?
Where is the paper trail? Where is the disclosure? To date, he has not
disclosed to Council, the costs for providing an electrical station in the
center of the park, the purpose of which is to eliminate the need for the
operators of scheduled events (such as “Art-In-The-Park.”) using their own
electrical generators to supply their equipment. That service has already been
installed in the park and was completed shortly after construction of the
original proposal for drainage and roadways had commenced. Neither has he
divulged to Council the cost of installing underground electrical wiring to
supply lighting for the myriad of roadways in his undisclosed proposal (a
matter which had been thoroughly discussed at Board meetings in developing the
plan); nor the annual cost of maintenance and repairs to the roadways and
lighting (and we certainly know asphalt requires much maintenance); nor the cost of snow removal for the entire
labyrinth which he has gone on record as promising; nor the cost of policing
the area (Windsor can’t provide policing for the park now). What other
improvements and costs are there? Vandalism and theft from parked cars has been
rampant in the park, so much so that the Board of Willistead Manor, had to
erect protective metal grating on part of the outside of the Manor itself
because of vandalism.
What
then were (and are) the motivating factors on the part of the Board for
Willistead Manor, and what are the real reasons for Mr. Miceli, to concoct his
fanciful plans? As mentioned, the Board consists inter alia of Stephen Marshall (Chairperson), Councillor Alan
Halberstadt, and John Miceli, from the Department of Parks and Recreation. Mr.
Marshall, in his tenure, has been solely engrossed with the concept of The
Manor and Willistead Park, being money
makers for the care, restoration, and maintenance of The Manor itself. No
mention is made of the other edifices on the property as is most evident by the
dilapidated condition of the Gate House. That structure, in itself of notable
historical significance, now embraces a posted sign of condemnation.
One absolute fact is that the Board has
absolutely no legal authority to determine to what use the public park is to be
put. But, in absence of legal authority either stipulated or implied, this
Board has proceeded to do whatever it wants without any prior public approval.
This was so when authority was given to the Rotary Club, an organization of business and professional
leaders, to hold what is now commonly referred to as “Art-In-The-Park.” So too
was the decision to hold the Antique Automobile Show (which the Board
ultimately lost for undisclosed reasons); and, of particular interest, was the
inauguration of the Beer Tent Festival in a residential neighbourhood,
accompanied by its loud music, boisterous and sometimes inebriated revelers
both during the event and in the parking lot well after the tent has closed.
The Board created a legal nuisance disturbing the normal lives of residents in
the neighbourhood, keeping children awake, and, yes, even adults who have
retired before midnight. The local residents, who have to suffer the indignity
of all of this commotion, were never consulted; the Board simply did it. The
current episode of the park drainage and ten foot roadways (some of the crushed
stone base for the roadway has recently been measured well in excess of ten
feet) boldly proceeded without the public being informed or having any say
about it. Clearly, the existing attitude of the members of the Board, is that
we can do what we want, when we want, and no one has the right to tell us we
can’t. What about the legal right to do these things which they don’t
have? And armed with the assistance of
Mr. Miceli and his Department of Parks and Recreation, they succeed with brazen
impunity. One should shudder to think of what scheme the Board will develop
next without any input or real say by the tax-paying public.
Once the project became known to the
general public, the work was halted, The Board vehemently denied that there was
any connection with the proposed changes and the two day operation of
“Art-In-The-Park”. At open forums,
Messrs. Marshall and Miceli, went on record absolutely in denial of this.
Instead, it was pointed out by Mr. Miceli, that these actions were planned for
Jackson Park, Willistead Park, and for other parks yet to be mentioned. And,
with respect to the ten foot width of the roadways, he had the brazen audacity
to refer to provincial legislation that required “walkways” to be of that
width. He further went on to state that, in the future, the City’s plans were
that all sidewalks must and will be that wide. The legislation doesn't
say that even given the most absurd interpretation. Finally, in an article
published in a Walkerville news publication (regrettably not in The Windsor Star), Mr. Marshall, stated
that “not only are the changes intended for the use by ‘Art-In-The-Park,’ but
for other promotions as well (he can’t name one at this time). Simply stated,
absolutely anyone who saw the proposed changes and followed the course of the
roadways could come to no other logical conclusion but that these changes were
being made to benefit “Art-In-The-Park”. It should also be noted that, at no
time, did the Board consider access by disabled persons as a justification for
the project. It was only at a public meeting that the issue was raised by a
concerned citizen. After that it became the Board’s raison d’etre for their pet project. And, once again, Mr. Miceli,
has authorized contractors to continue excavations and construction in spite of
the fact that Council’s decision has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal
Board. Normal practice would dictate that the Council’s Order be suspended
until such time that the O.M.B. makes a decision. Typical!
So that we can all comprehend the
end result, the burden of the $400,000.00 project, the electrical system at the
centre of the park for promoters, annual maintenance and repair costs, the
electricity for the entrepreneurs, and policing, are all to be paid for by the
Windsor taxpayers. More importantly, I know that the City and its Legal
Department, are familiar with the Legal Principle of Allurement, and they
should be concerned about this and the potential civil lawsuits should persons
be tempted to be on the property at any hour of the day or night and become
injured while skate-boarding, roller blading, bicycle riding, etc., during the
remaining three hundred and sixty-three or so days of the year when
“Art-In-The-Park” isn't being held.
When persons use the public office
that they hold, and use the authority of that office to further plans they have
devised to satisfy their or others’ goals and ambitions, in so doing abuse
their public trust and waste taxpayers money. This also applies to the members
of the Board of Willistead Manor. In my respectful opinion, there exists real
justification for reasonable apprehension on the part of the taxpayers as to
bias, abuse of office, abuse of powers and authority, abuse of taxpayer funds
for the benefit of entrepreneurs and others, deceit, deception, and malicious
propagation of plans to satisfy personal ambitions on the part of those
involved. The same apprehension should exist in the minds of the members of our
Municipal Government as well. Several promises have been made with respect to
the construction of this project and the future maintenance and repairs of
same. The persons responsible for these promises should reasonably expect that
the public no longer gives credence to their promises, nor do they have trust
in the individuals involved.
The ultimate cost for this project,
both disclosed costs and undisclosed costs, will in the end exceed over a half
of a million dollars, plus the annual costs of maintenance, repairs, policing,
etc. If the public so chose, it would have been significantly better to set
aside that half of a million plus dollars for the actual restoration,
maintenance, and repairs of Willistead Manor, the Gate House and other
buildings on the site. The end result then would be that the City would be
saving an irreplaceable historic site, and a substantial sum by not having to
pay for the continued maintenance, repairs, electricity and policing costs.
Also, consider what might be saved should one civil lawsuit arise out of
injuries sustained by individuals in their use of the roadways. Let the
promoters of the current events prove to the Windsor citizens how much net
revenue they donate specifically for the Willistead Manor, and how long it will
take for them to donate a further half of a million dollars plus annual costs.
Do we really need a valuable,
historic site covered with asphalt? Sadly, the City of Windsor, has a poor
record for the preservation of historical grounds and edifices. Consider that a
visitor to Toronto’s Casa Loma can tour the grounds and buildings at any time
during the day. Try doing that at the Willistead Manor. For that matter, try
visiting the Honourable Paul Martin Gardens located beside the Manor. You
cannot. As I was told by a member of the Board at one of the public meetings,
“The garden is always locked because of vandalism.”
The City of Windsor had a program in
place called, “Adopt-A-Park,” the requirements for which were clearly outlined
in the City’s web pages. When a neighbourhood group tried to file an
application and consent forms to adopt Willistead Park, Mr. Miceli’s office refused
them. Within minutes, any reference to this program was removed from the city’s
web-site. By what authority did he do this? More importantly, was it a fear
that people will actually have a say in what is happening and upset his and the
Board’s plans? Where is the accountability for his actions? The “Adopt-A-Park”
program is alive and well in other municipalities in the Province of Ontario.
It is working exceptionally well in the Cities of London, Hamilton, and
Toronto, to name but a few. But Windsorites are denied participation!
If members of Council do not believe
that they have the moral and legal obligations mentioned in my opening
paragraph, then it is time for a change of council members. Should Council not
choose to rectify this situation, hopefully the O.M.B. will not fall prey to
the devices of Messrs. Miceli and Marshall.
In closing, should one of the future
events being planned by the Board be a circus or a carnival, the proprietors
will not have to look very far for a supply of clowns, and I am not making
reference to those members of Council who are at times portrayed by the
lovable Mike Graston, in his editorial cartoons as such.
Harold G. LeBoeuf - Windsor
Mr. LeBoeuf is a lifelong citizen of Windsor.
He is a Member in Good Standing with the Law Society of Upper Canada
