NewsWindsor

Why I Voted No On The Assumption Grant

Some may have seen the article in today’s Windsor Star, and some may have wondered how come I voted No on the funding for Assumption.

Coun. Percy Hatfield was one of two committee members who voted against giving the Assumption campaign such a large grant. Andrew Foot was the other board member against the motion.

“It’s a very worthy cause,” Hatfield said. “I plan to make a personal donation out of my wallet. It’s worth saving and I know they will get the money, but I don’t know that taxpayers should be paying so much of the $10 million.

“It’s one church and one religion in our community. You are opening the door that sets a precedent. Others are not going to want just $50,000 anymore, but also $100,000 or $200,000. It’s a slippery slope.”

The city contributes about $36,500 annually into the committee’s heritage fund.

While the Star was happy to report I voted no, they were far too lazy to ask me why… In fact, no one even bothered to talk with me after the meeting or call me for clarification, so since they dropped the ball, I’ll lay out my reasons why, because I know there are many out there with questions:

My vote was simply a protest vote. I only voted nay because I knew it would pass, had I felt the vote would be close it would of had my vote, as I do think it is an important project.

I voted no, because the diocese is not donating one cent to the project, yet they expect Windsor Taxpayers to do so via the fund. All the diocese is donating is money from the parking lot at the U, which another parishioner has told me that the church already got… and the other “gift” is the proceeds from future sales of other properties, several of which are other churches in the west end that will be, but still have yet to be closed. Among them, Holy Name of Mary on McEwen off Wyandotte, Blessed Sacrament on Prince,
and St. Patrick’s. The old close and sell routine, doesn’t sit well with me, plus the fact that there is no guarantee of what those building will sell for. I’m sure we’ll likely see another Christ the King style demo or two… (Holy Name of Mary is designated, therefore protected).

Had they even given a token amount of actual cash, then it would have been a different story. But a $10 million project, and they haven’t given one cent towards it. The onus as usual with the Catholic Church, is on everyone else.

So Windsor Star, thanks for not doing your job.

Related posts
RenderingsWindsor

St George's Walkerville - 2017

Old PhotographsWindsor

391 Tecumseh Road East - Former Supertest Station

Notable WindsoritesWindsor

H. W. Patterson House - 2277 Lincoln Road

DemolitionOld PhotographsPostcardsWindsor

Hiram Walker Bottling Plant

Recent Comments:

  • Jo-Anne on Hofer Brewery: “I am one of Vital’s Benoit granddaughters. My Dad, Allan was the second youngest of Vital’s children. I would also…Sep 15, 19:28
  • Sarah on Walkerville Tourist Camp Honeymoon Nest: “I love this! We have lost so much of our interesting history here in Windsor. Have you had much luck…Aug 26, 19:33
  • JM on Osterhout’s Confectionary – 333 Ouellette: “Great story! I really like to read about the ‘human element’ behind these buildings and businesses; a part of Windsor…Aug 24, 07:45
  • Whitney on 888 Chilver: “I grew up in this house. When we moved in, everything was falling apart. It was the quintessential “money pit”.…Aug 21, 02:47
  • Dominic on Diana Restaurant – Leamington – 1954: “Sherry, you are correct, Diana Restaurant was owned by George, Nick and Gus, but it was sold on August 25th…Aug 16, 13:13

16 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *