November 9, 2020 City Council Meeting – Item 15 Additional Information Notice of Motion

-----Original Message----

From: deb

Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 9:42 AM

To: clerks < clerks@citywindsor.ca>

Cc: mayoro < mayoro@citywindsor.ca>; Sleiman, Ed < esleiman@citywindsor.ca>; Holt, Chris < cholt@citywindsor.ca>; Bortolin, Rino < rbortolin@citywindsor.ca>; Gignac, Jo-Anne (Councillor) < joagignac@citywindsor.ca>; Costante, Fabio < fcostante@citywindsor.ca>; Francis, Fred < ffrancis@citywindsor.ca>; Mckenzie, Kieran < kmckenzie@citywindsor.ca>; Morrison, Jim < jmorrison@citywindsor.ca>; Kaschak, Gary < gkaschak@citywindsor.ca>; Gill, Jeewen < JGill@citywindsor.ca>

Subject: Item 15 ( Notices of Motion) City Council Agenda for Nov.9

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Critchley,

Please include the following submission for the meeting of Council on November 9.

Thank You

Deborah Buckner

Mayor and Councillors,

I wish to speak against this motion.

Firstly, as written, the motion is so non-specific in terms of what property has been purchased, that I don’t get the purpose of the motion. If the intent of the motion is for the City to announce it’s endorsement of support for the location of the hospital, then I must speak against the motion.

Assuming we are talking about the County Rd 42 location, I must speak against the City endorsing this location.

It is a terrible choice in terms of accessibility for most of the population of the City.

It is a terrible choice environmentally to build and pave so much at the top of the Little River watershed. How does the City reconcile this with the recent Climate Emergency proclamation, or ignore this while planning to spend billions of our tax dollars to mitigate flooding in East Windsor?

It is a terrible choice financially, as the infrastructure and future development costs will fall to the taxpayers. Dreaming of thousands of new homes generating new taxes, when the projected population remains stagnant, is just that - a dream, which will come at the cost of lost taxes in older areas of the City, causing further degradation there.

I could continue, but I realize my points are my opinion, based on my research, and so may be dismissed by some.