You Don't Know What You Don't Know

(upbeat music) - Welcome to Rowe City Politics. I'm Pat Papadeus. - I'm Doug Saratory. And I'm Kristen Siafus. - And it's especially good to have Kristen back with us tonight. Kristen was one of those voices around the table before we took our little hiatus and we're happy to have her back as part of the RCP team, RCP family as we head into this municipal election. - Yes, it is the season. It is, I'm so excited to be back especially when it is municipal election season. I feel like I've just been chomping at the bit. So I'm very excited to be here tonight. And kicking things off with a huge episode. I can't believe I got called in on one of the heavy hitters. I feel like it's gonna be an exciting one tonight. - Well, we'll see because our social media manager when introduced you on social went on to say, let the chaos reign or begin or something like that. So I can't, I gotta warm up to chaos, I don't know. I can't guarantee chaos right out of the gate. We'll see what happens. - Well, before we get into tonight's conversation, we do have a few quick things. First of all, of course, a big thank you to our sponsor, Lionel Opel 625 for supporting RoCity Politics and helping us get back on the show. We really appreciate it. And if you're planning to attend the Windsor Mayoral debate being presented by the chamber, we have an exclusive offer for RoCity Politics listeners. We have complimentary tickets to the debate. We have all the details on our social media. So check that out on RoCity Politics and Facebook. Actually, the details aren't there. The details are in a previous four minute promo that I've done and that you can find in the same place that you get this podcast. So if you're planning to attend the mayoral debate, we have an exclusive offer for our CP listeners, thanks to the Downtown Windsor BIA. It's a complimentary ticket to the chamber debate again, which is on Tuesday, September 29th at the Chrysler Theater. And I will tell you what it is right now. To go get your tickets, go to RoCity Politics Post about the debate on Facebook or Instagram. I think it's asking you where are we talking politics on September 29th and your job is to enter into the comments, the word downtown. And when you do that, you'll get a promotional code in your DM. We are asking folks not to share that publicly, but it will give you the rest of the information on how to get that. And of course, I have to say the tickets are limited and they come on a first comfort services. - Okay, just to continue on with RoCity Politics stuff, we're kind of everywhere right now because it is municipal election season, as Christa mentioned. So starting next week, we're releasing bonus episodes featuring some of the candidates running in the ward races that have taken us up on our offer to spend a little time with our CP. These are gonna be shorter, more focused conversations with candidates, typically the sort of a stock set of questions about who they are, why they're running, what they want to accomplish, and some issues specific to their particular race. The regular show will be the place where RCP panelists and sometimes our guests get to talk about what's happening in Windsor politics with the typical opinion and debate that we bring. Today's show is gonna be our last interview for a while, starting next week, we'll get to that old school format that everyone knows and loves and expects from us. - A couple of other things we want you to check out, you can head over to Let's Chat Windsor AMA, that is happening on Reddit. The Let's Chat Windsor AMAs are incredible. It's bringing a lot of candidates in the selection to that forum, check them out if you haven't. It's a great opportunity for two-way interaction and to get a better sense of those candidates in a more conversational setting. Also, please check out the Women of Windsor podcast. If you do listen already, you know that I hang out there sometimes too, wow politics. They continue to have important conversations on their show along with guests who share insights, experiences, and perspectives on women in politics. They have also, wow politics has also partnered with Windsor Essex Empowers and Windsor Feminist Theater to present an evening of conversation with women who are running for election in this election, in Windsor and in neighboring communities. It is happening on the same night as the chamber debate, the mayoral debate that the chamber is presenting downtown, but the mayoral debate is at four and this event for women in politics is at seven. So you can make both, you should do both. And of course, as women, we are always gonna do twice the work. I have to throw that in there, huh? But truly, truly, you know, it is super valuable. So, please don't attend just because you're a woman, but please attend if you would like to support women, if you'd like to see more women around the table. As we all should have more voices around the table at council, at every level, that event is happening. Again, at the same night as the mayoral debate from presented by the chamber, it's happening at Geno A Marcus Community Center at 7 p.m. thanks to wow politics, Windsor Essex Empowers and Windsor Femmes Theater for putting that on. - All right, and with that, let's get on with tonight's conversation. Tonight we're joined by Fred Francis, who has represented Ward one on Windsor City Council since 2014 and is now seeking the mayor's chair, excuse me, after three terms as a city councilor. Fred is running against incumbent Mayor Drew Dilkins as are nine other candidates and his campaign is offering voters a message of change. Before entering politics, Fred worked in the private sector and nonprofit sectors and he is currently the executive director of the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County. Over his 12 years on council, Francis has been involved in a wide range of municipal issues with fiscal responsibility, property taxes, infrastructure, economic development and neighborhoods among the recurring themes of his political career. His mayoral campaign continues to emphasize fiscal responsibility and affordability while also putting a strong focus on housing, economic growth, infrastructure and what he describes as a more open and accountable city hall. These priorities and how they fit together are some of the things we'll explore in our conversation tonight. Fred Francis, welcome to Rowe City Politics. - Thank you, it's great to be here, I'm excited. - Thanks, Fred, we're gonna start off with just sort of pointing out that there are 11 candidates in the field running for mayor in this election, including the incumbent. So there are 10 candidates, including you, running to replace him. As the only candidate in this race who has that on council, you're challenging a mayor, you served alongside for 12 years. So when voters are deciding between another Dilkins term and a Francis mayoralty, what do you think they're actually choosing between? - Well, I think they're choosing between the status quo and change, and that's what my campaign is offering, but not just change for the sake of change, but what our slogan is, change that works for you. And over the last four years, I've seen a lot of things that I just did not agree with. And that's where we kind of separated, I think, along the path of the last four year term, we disagreed, Drew Dilkins and I did on safe point, a harm reduction site. We disagreed on the use of strong mayor powers. We disagreed on increasing debt. We disagreed on increasing taxes. We disagreed on the Roseland development. So there's a lot of disagreement in the last four years. And I think that's where I really grew into my own and grew as a politician. And people ask me this question all the time, how are you different from Drew Dilkins, or even how are you different than your brother when he was mayor? And I think those are fair questions to ask, and I'm happy to answer them, and I gave you some examples. But the way I look at it and what I tell people is, how am I different than I was 12 years ago? I look back on the counselor who was first elected in 2014, and I'm like, whoa, that is a completely different person. Outside of just politics, I'm a father now, I'm a husband now, I wasn't back then. And just that 12 years of political experience, working with people who are no longer there at the city council table, learning, growing, and the one thing I learned the most, and I appreciated this term more so than any other term is, the need for compromise, and the need for differences of opinion around the council table. Last term, I think we had a great variety of perspectives around the council table. You had Chris Holt, Reno Boardlin, among others, and you had a variety of opinions, a variety of perspectives. And that led to debate, that led to argument, that led to dialogue, but it also led to compromise, and Fabio Costante as well. And I think that was missing this term, and that's something I really didn't appreciate until it was gone. And then you add in strong mayor powers, the fact that Drew Wilkins used the veto this term, and that really turned me off into where we were going and what I was seeing at City Hall. So one of the reasons I am running, and one of the things I want to do, to do with open accountable and responsible city hall is to empower the counselors again, remove strong mayor powers, repeal strong mayor powers, and make it an 11-person body once again where six people have to raise their hands to move something forward. And my hope is that that will bring back the dialogue, the disagreement, the arguments, and hopefully the compromise because in my event, in my 12 years on council, it's those moments when we're able to find compromise that I think we were really able to move the city forward. And I think that's been lacking this last four years. And one of the reasons why I'm running for mayor is to bring that back to the council table and bring that back to city hall. So you've seen a lot of chains over the last 12 years, you know, it's great to have that perspective. I think of, you know, how you started, how it's changed, what you'd like to get back to or how you'd like to bring more in. I mean, when you look at your own track record over the last 12 years, what is something that you're really proud of accomplishing? Like what's something that that, you know, from 12 years ago, you thought, I'd like to be a city counsellor because I'd like to do X. I want to see this change. I want to see something great happen. Is there something that you can look back and say that there's something that I did? There's something that I'm proud of at least. Yeah, it's a great question. And literally, you know, when I was making the decision, and it wasn't an easy decision. And, you know, people would come up to me and my wife Carolyn at the diner, at Debs, at diner, at the mall and just throughout the city and saying, well, we hope you run. You know, it's time for a change. We want change. And we think you can do it. And we're comfortable with you. So we hope you can run. But, you know, I have a young family at home. I have a two-year-old daughter, Bianca, and I have a full-time job. So I really gave it some thought and we didn't come out until August. And I really gave consideration to what people were telling me about running. And the need that I also felt that there was a need for a change to empower counselors and so on and make things better at City Hall for the betterment of the community. So that's why I decided to run. But another factor that went into it is, listen, I could have run for Ward 1 again. I think, you know, some people told me, why don't you just run for Ward 1 again, wait for years, and then run for mayor. But I never wanted to be a politician who runs and holds on to a seat just to say, just because you can win. And just because you could hold on to a seat. So I look back and I told Carolyn, I go, I kind of feel after 12 years as a City Councilor in Ward 1, I've kind of accomplished everything I wanted to accomplish. And when I went back and looked at my literature from 2014, 2018, 2022, you know, we were able to expand the Kipri Rec Center. We were able to make improvements to Kibana Road. We're able to make improvements to Boomer library. We're able to put more paths and trails in Ward 1 and then specifically at Central Park. We were able to turn Roseland golf course into a money loser from a money loser sorry into a money winner. So we were able to, you know, advocate strongly for fiscal responsibility and making sure people's tax taxes in skyrocket, making sure that we're not spending your hard earned tax dollars unwisely. I spoke up when I felt something was wrong. I stood on principle when I thought something was wrong. Even though I was oftentimes maybe the only person to do so on council. So I factored all that in and I told myself I'm like, listen, it's time for someone else to run in Ward 1 and new energy, new perspectives, new ideas because I really felt I had everything, I contributed everything I could as a as a ward counselor. And I don't want to stay on just for the sake of staying on. I want to move aside and give someone else a chance because I do believe in public service. And I think new ideas are good. New energy and new perspectives are good. So I look at that and I go, okay, well, do I want to walk away or do I want to run for mayor because I still have something to offer on a citywide perspective. And I came to the conclusion that I still had something to offer. And I want to take what I've learned. I want to take my expertise at the council table and outside the council table and and bring it to the mayor's office. What are some of the things I want to see change at City Hall? How do we address the affordability issue? How do we make meaningful change on the homelessness issue and bring in more affordable housing? I still had something more to give and I felt that I can make those contributions as mayor. So once Carolyn said it was okay to do so, we made it public and and and that's how I came to the decision to run for mayor. But long winded answer very short. I felt as a city council of 12 years I've accomplished everything I could. I wanted to move aside and give someone else a shot. But I still think I had something to contribute and I wanted to try at the mayor level. So it's interesting. I know we're kind of sticking on this reflection bit a little bit as we kind of get into the beginning of this conversation. But I want to stay here for just a second because a lot of what you do when you enter the mayor will race when you've been a councilor for so long and you have such a history and a legacy and obviously your family connection and everything else it comes with all that baggage. It comes with the the collective memory of who you are and what you've decided on and you are a person who speaks your mind and what we've seen from you over the years is that you're not afraid to share your opinion for a lot of times that that opinion was supported by by the mayor or by members of council. It's easy to to speak your mind if everybody's going to agree with you. Over the last couple of years we've seen you take more of a stand on your own. You're you're okay to be the voice of opposition. You're okay to say those things. I think what I'm interested about especially because we've seen a little bit of that change in you. It is there anything and I will say this as somebody who is also outspoken and not afraid to share my opinion. The struggle with that is that sometimes you will come out on an issue and say here's my opinion that's what it is and then six months later you go oh I really maybe I should think about that a little bit more or you you have new information or the time changes or whatever. A pandemic hit something happens to to give you different perspective but you don't always get the same public opportunity to say you know what I think differently about that now and I'm curious about the that change that that we've seen in you and particularly like is there any issue when you look back over the 12 years is there any issue or any vote or any you know particular thing that you look back and go and say you know what knowing what I know now I probably wouldn't support that today. Yeah absolutely obviously you grow as an individual in 12 years professionally and personally and you know these are private conversations I've had but I'll I'll share a little bit of it publicly. You know I've had conversations with former counselors Bill Maura Ericus Merichek Chris Holt in Reno Borland and I apologize to them on certain issues where I told them I'm like you know on this issue on that issue over the years you know if I had to do it over again I wouldn't have taken that stance I wouldn't have said this I wouldn't have said that. Yeah I want the itemized apology list friend yeah yeah and it's it's it's and they were gracious and they were very gracious and they're very accepting and I just wanted to be honest and and I do acknowledge that I've changed obviously after 12 years you changes in individual but I also say one of the things I am proud of is that I've been consistent and when it comes to certain things people know that I haven't flipped locked and and that I've been the consistent voice on certain things be at fiscal responsibility how you spend your tax dollars priority spending getting people more involved making sure that we don't change the times at City Hall from four o'clock to ten o'clock because we want delegates we want more people to run and I work full time so I understand that moving the time from four o'clock to ten o'clock is really not going to allow a lot of people to run for council because they're not going to be able to take off 20 Mondays and their employment to run for council and that's a deterrent and so I've been consistent with that and it's it's looking back on that that I do there are things I'm like ah why'd you say that or why'd you take that stance and I just chalk it up to being somewhat younger at the time and maybe a little bit more naive but again that's one of the reasons why I'm running for mayor now because all those experiences all those growth opportunities have led me to be who I am now and that's when I want to contribute to the mayor's office but that's that's I didn't have given us we still need one we still need one regret from you I want to hear there's a lot I'm trying to think of one I'm there's so many I'm not going to lie to you there's so many but there there are a few but I mean if I had to chalk it up I would say or a perspective on a on a on a topic like it you know you you realize that uh you know whether it's supporting folks experiencing homelessness or is it is it you know I don't know some inter inter conflict within the the no you know what I'll say I'll say this I'll say back when in in previous councils where you know there was uh the the the clicks I guess if you wanted to call it the clicks or six four no more or when there's certain certain certain segments I think I could have done more to break that I think I could have done more and I should have done more to break looking back on it now I should have uh I should have done more to break that I I should have done more as as a leader on council to make sure that all the members of council felt that they were were part of it and everyone had an equal playing field and it's somewhat ironic because you know this term I felt that way I felt like I was the odd man out for a number of reasons so that's kind of maybe karma coming back and and again a learning experience now I know how other councilors felt and that's why I reached out to them and go okay I get it now I understand I should have known better and I should have done things differently I should have I should have played a more active leadership role to make sure you know you were more involved or you were more in the loop or your your your voice was heard a little bit more so [BLANK_AUDIO] say that would probably be my biggest regret. I could have done more in previous terms to help empower other councilor colleagues. Really interesting. Fred, I want to get into some specifics of what a Francis administration would do and let's start with something that you've been consistent on that goes back to your time and your record on council. In 2023, council approved an additional 0.25% levy for the city's asset management plan. At that time, you were the only councilor to vote against that increase. At the time, your argument was that rather than adding another levy to the tax bill, the city should re-prioritize its existing capital budget to find the money. And your current campaign is taking the same position. Your platform calls for eliminating the asset management plan surcharge on city taxes. And your platform says that's about $41 million cost to taxpayers. How will you account for the additional burden on the capital budget? What would you cut to make the room for the asset management plan? Yeah, that's a great question. So I've always been a favor of the asset management plan. So to get this clear, everyone needs to have an asset management plan. All cities need to have an asset management plan. That's dictated by the province and the provincial government. But they didn't say how you have to pay for it. For instance, they didn't say Windsor, you have to create a tax to pay for the asset management plan. That's something Windsor did in 2020-2021 and increased it in 2023. I've always been opposed to the asset management tax. I've never voted for it. I didn't think it was appropriate or responsible to add an additional tax of about 1%, 1.1%. That's about five to six million additional dollars during the COVID crisis and during the affordability crisis. You know, you have a lot of politicians, a lot of candidates talking about affordability, but a lot of these same people, including Rudilkins, raised their hands and slapped the residents of Windsor with an additional 1% tax when they did not have to. Right? So that tax is gone now. So Council is going to have to decide if they want to bring it back in 2027 or not. As a result of that tax, it's added another about $41 million to the base budget. So that $41 million is already there. That's in the base budget moving forward. That will always be there. Council is going to have to decide if they want to add to that or not. Now, Windsor has never had an asset management tax. Property taxes pay for operating and capital. I didn't think it was necessary or responsible to add a second capital tax when people are already paying for a capital tax. So what I've always said is we have to live within our means. What does that mean? So we have about a $2 billion capital budget for 10 years. We have to ensure that $2 billion pays for the things we needed to pay for, including existing assets. Now, we'll also get grants and funding from senior levels of government as a result. But, you know, the capital tax and property taxes pay for capital tax. I never wanted a secondary tax. I also thought it was somewhat of a get out of jail free card because when you charge the people of Windsor and additional capital tax, you're freeing up money to spend on non-priority items, non-priority capital items. And you've heard me say this before. The costly legacy projects, your trolley project, your trolley brick and project that was over budget comes in at $10 million. The city hall ice ring over budget comes in about $15.5 million. If it wasn't for the asset management tax, those projects wouldn't be able to happen because the money would not be there. And I'm not saying they're bad projects. I'm not saying they're ugly. I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just saying they're not priorities. So that's $25 million right there that you could put towards to existing assets. So that's the prudent step I would take as mayor. And I had tried to take as a counselor is we have more than enough money. If we spend within our means and we focus on the priorities, people are telling us we need to focus on roads, sewers, park enhancements and other assets that we have to keep up with. We don't need a secondary capital tax to pay for those things. And I thought it was extremely irresponsible to essentially take $6 million dollars more a year out of the residence pockets during COVID and during an affordability crisis. So it's no different than how you run your household or how you run your business. You don't spend more money than you have. And obviously everybody would like to have more money. And if you have more money, you could spend it. But it's an affordability issue and someone has to pay for this city hall, city counselors in the mayor can't just create new taxes to pay for whatever they want to pay for. The residents don't want us to do that. They want us to be responsible and they want us to spend their tax dollars wisely. And that's what I've always tried to do. And as mayor, that's what I'll continue to do. Keeping keeping really within that and also looking at another aspect of your platform and maybe one that is, you know, you were talking about priorities. Housing is now a significant part of your platform, including affordable housing and addressing homelessness. But we've also seen you take a fairly cautious approach to intensification and development. So when the city was considering the federal housing accelerator fund, you supported rejecting Ottawa's original offer, arguing that Windsor needed to consider neighborhood concerns and things like infrastructure capacity, you know, including sewer systems. You also distinguish those federal requirements from the province's triplex legislation, where municipalities have less discretion. So I'm interested in what your approach to housing actually looks like as mayor, like when you talk about building more affordable housing, where do you think that housing should go? Yeah, no, and I still believe in that, Pat. And I sit on the planning heritage committee and I've been at a number of those committees where residents come and they're very upset. And what I've learned about that anger is that they just want a voice. And the provincial changes that were made during this term giving residents less of a voice about what happens in their neighborhood, I agree with the residents. And I work for them. They don't work for me. And I think that if you live in a neighborhood and you bought a house and you're investing in your house, and that's the largest expenditure you'll probably spend in your lifetime, you should have a say what happens in your neighborhood. And if the character of that neighborhood is going to change or not, you should at least have a say. And I'll always advocate for the residents on that. I believe that. With respect to the fourplexes or threeplexes, you know, what the government was said as of right saying, okay, the residents won't have a say. I'm not against fourplexes. I'm not against buildings. I'm not against, you know, intensification or other forms of density with respect to housing. But the residents in that area wherever it goes need to have a say. They should have a say. And that say should be considered. Regardless if they agree with the decision or not, they should at least have a say and their voice needs to be heard. That's how as elected officials, we make informed decisions. As it relates to affordable housing, I think the focus has been shifted a little bit off this term to more of a shelter approach, right? And there's nothing wrong with that. We need a balance. But the problem with a shelter approach or the focus being on a shelter approach is that's temporary. And there's been a lot of talk about housing, but you know, a lot of this housing is not affordable housing or subsidize housing or social housing. We need to move forward again with the focus on housing first initiatives with rent supplements and other housing supports to keep people in permanent housing. That's how we will move the needle forward on on the homelessness issue. Obviously, we'll still need shelters. Obviously, we'll still need other forms of housing, but we need to go back to the focus being on permanent affordable housing with supports that around that. And with respect to where they go, there's a number of places within the city where we can put them with respect to empty lots, intensification, and future growth, right? But obviously, we have to work with the development community to provide the incentives that they need to build those houses. And in the areas where we have control and we're working with developers and the city has full control, we have to say, this is how many affordable units we need. If you want to develop this and you want to get your tax incentives and you want to get your grants or if you want to get this piece of property for a dollar or whatever it is, these are the number of affordable units you must have. Maybe it's 40 percent, 60 percent, or maybe it's 50 units or 75 units, but the city has to take a more direct active role in building more affordable units, right? And that includes with rent supplements and social housing. A few years ago, we built metalbrook. We could do that again. And there's a number of areas with respect to one area that comes to the top of my mind, the grey site. The grey site still sits empty. That's a failure of Drew Dilkins of this term of council. There's no reason why there shouldn't be development at the grey site right now. As mayor, we will move forward on development of the grey site and it will be heavily, heavily, heavily geared towards affordable housing because that will make a huge, huge significant difference. So you have large areas like the grey site, but you also have one-off areas that are single lots or multi-lots that can have smaller developments. But we will work with the development community, with the tools we have to ensure more affordable housing units are built. Why do you think it hasn't happened yet? Well, I mean, I think the market dictates that to be honest with you, Chris. And I think nobody, I shouldn't say nobody, but I think when you're dealing with the free market, there's going to be profitability revenues. And people want to maximize profits and they want to increase their revenues if they're taking on large expenses and there's nothing wrong with that. But if the free market was going to do this on its own, we wouldn't be having this conversation, obviously. So this is where the municipality has to step in and has to ensure there's more affordable units. The city built metal broke, right? That wasn't a private development, the city built that. And we might have to do that again. You know, we're talking about villages at the barn. Again, this is we're looking at something potentially at $50 million with senior levels of support, but it's a shelter. That's temporary. Like these are great ideas, but what's slowing us down? Like why don't we have that now? Like if you're in council, you have the ability to bring forward emotion on this. Why isn't that happening? Well, being a counselor and being mayor are two different things. And you can see that. You can see that in the last term, you know, when the mayor wants something, they get to drive that process very fast. And I'll point you towards Roseland, right? I've never seen a development move that quickly. And I've heard that from the business community. I've heard that from other counselors. So when the political will is coming from the top, things move very, very fast. As a counselor, I'm one of, you know, 10, we don't we don't have that. And when you add strong mayor powers into the equation, then that empowers the mayor over counselors even more so. I wish I had that authority. I wish the other counselors had that authority. But just to be honest with you, we don't. But that's another reason why I'm running for mayor to empower counselors. So we could all work together to ensure that we can move the process forward. So we could see more affordable homes and more affordable units built in our city. Okay, I've got another question for you. I'm just going to pivot the topic here for a second. One of the things that you talked about in the campaign is changing the culture at City Hall. That's been the big focus on, you know, the change that you want to bring. You've identified a lot of the, the how it feels to be a city counselor, how you want to see the work progressing. It's not just your campaign slogan. The city has identified culture and leadership as a significant organizational issue through employee experience work. So you've been at the council for 12 years. You've had a long view of the political side and how the political side and the administrative side of City Hall work together. So when you talk about changing the culture at City Hall, what specifically do you think needs to change and what can you do? What would you actually do as the mayor to change that? Well, on day one, I'd get rid of strong mayor powers. I would repeal strong mayor powers. I'd give them back. I'd give them, we won't use them. And I know their provincial legislation and to the extent that we can give them back, we'll give them back. And to the extent that we can't, I will not use them. And that's what you see. Other county mayor is doing who were given them. They just don't use them. So we will go back to how things used to be. Where you have one mayor and 10 members of council and six of us have to raise our hands to get things done. I've never seen counselors being sidelined to the extent that they've been sidelined this term of strong mayor powers. And we've seen one veto used. So that's not my intention. My intention is not to be a one man show. My intention is not to consolidate power in the mayor's office and ignore everyone and not listen to everyone. I want to do the opposite. I want to empower I want to bring counselors into the agenda making process. I want to bring counselors into the budget making process. I want to have monthly news conferences. I want to have monthly meeting, monthly meetings with counselors with media availability. I want to open, I want to have less in-camera meetings. I want to have the in-camera meeting agenda is more descriptive. So media members actually know what we're talking about behind closed doors. I want to have those in-camera voting results published at the next public meeting of council. And I want to have all members of voting record of all regular sessions of council being published as well, not just the recorded vote. I want to move the city council meetings back to four o'clock so more people can attend, more people can participate. So there's, and listen, some people are saying, well, those are a lot of changes, but that's how we used to do things. Things used to be done like that. And just even simply moving the meetings back to four o'clock, having an in-camera meeting before you have a regular session meeting allows members of the media to go, okay, what did you guys just talk about before a regular session starts? That's changed right now. And oftentimes you don't even have members of the media there when we get out of in-camera meetings. Yeah, so this is, that's a lot of the political side. And I know that's your, that's your real house, that's where you come from, and that's where you're seeing the changes that have taken place that you want to maybe reverse or improve. But I'm interested also about the interaction between the political and the administrative, that we're also hearing from within city hall that there's the culture problem that maybe, I mean, where does that come from? Does that come from the top as well? Is that something where we're seeing, you know, people are afraid to act, they're afraid to do, I don't know, like whatever the culture is that stems from that culture of fear in leadership, is that something that you're seeing and how do you solve that as a mayor? Yes, it is. And the buck stops with the mayor. The mayor's the head of council, the mayor's the CEO of the city. And, you know, all full accountability needs to stop in that office with whoever's sitting at that chair. Regardless, if they want to take accountability or not, regardless if they want to ignore it or not, that's where the accountability rests. And I have seen a culture of fear, whereas before, you know, when the mayor with strong mayor powers gets to determine who's hired, who isn't, who's promoted, who isn't. And, you know, before it took six of us, right? So that changes the dynamic between members of administration and city council. That changes the entire dynamic between the elected officials and everyone at city hall, inside and outside, because they go, okay, what do I have to do to get promoted? Who do I have to make happy to get promoted? Who's told do I not have to step on to get promoted? Am I going to go along to get along? Or am I going to rock the boat? So, you know, those are things that we have to address. As mayor, like I said, we'll get rid of strong mayor powers, we'll go back to a six vote. So it doesn't matter if you're the CAO or a CLT member, you know, you know that I need six members of council to approve my hiring, my firing, or my promotion. That changes the dynamic instantly. And that trickles down to everybody else with respect to creating a meritocracy. Now we know when the decision is not just one person, you're going to have more of a meritocracy where people feel that they could speak out more, feel that they could speak truth to power. That is what's missing right now. And we want to bring that back. And the one thing I've learned throughout my life is that the smartest person in the room doesn't think they're the smartest person in the room. And they want to hear from everybody. They want pushback. They want different ideas. They need people to come up to them and say, hey, listen, what you're doing is wrong. Or this is not the best idea. When you create an environment that exists now at City Hall, you're just surrounding yourself with yes men or yes people. And they're just telling you what you want to hear. And that doesn't benefit the mayor. And that doesn't benefit the city moving forward. And unfortunately, that's what I've heard time and time again about the different environment and situation at City Hall. But moreover, you also see physical changes at City Hall where, you know, I was a counselor with the Old City Hall Building and the New City Hall Building. And you've all been in the City Hall Building's new and old. And you knew you could just walk right into the mayor's office. You knew you could just walk into the clerk's office. You knew you could go up all five levels. No problem. You know, all of a sudden, you know, you can only go to the second floor. And the third floor, third floor, fourth floor, fifth floor are closed off to the members of the public, closed off to members of the media. Or you have to go to the reception desk to be accompanied up to the clerk's office. That's a change. I want to ask you something about that because we heard from Drew when he came and did and hung out with us on the podcast that he's got a very open door and the counselors can stop by any time and all those things. Do you feel like that? That is truly the culture because I heard that. I'm going to tell you honestly and I was not on the program that week and it was a moment where I was yelling at my radio because I was like, there's got to be a follow-up to this. We have to know, is that really true? Because we're not hearing that. What we're hearing is that there is strong mayor powers and that there is a culture of fear. And if that's the change that you profess to bring, that's what you want to bring. How always what you're doing different from what's actually happening? Is what he is saying happening not happening or are you going to bring actual change to it? No, I'm going to bring actual change to it and we're going to open up City Hall again. Obviously, you have to take security precautions. And obviously in 2026, their security precautions are different than in 2014. So we're not saying we're not going to take security precautions. But City Hall belongs to the people. It doesn't belong to the politicians or members of administration. Media need to be able to do their jobs. They need to find out what they need to find out to hold the elected officials accountable. And I can tell you, there's a lot of things going on at City Hall that Media don't know about and they can't do their jobs to hold this accountable because they don't find out about it. But listen, don't take my word for it. You just recently saw a letter published from the police chief saying that they needed to sweep the mayor's office for bugs because there's a mayoral campaign going on and some incumbents have liberal access to City Hall. So if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about a culture of paranoia and fear, I don't know what I can tell you. That's not me saying it. That's coming from the chief of police from apparently the director from the mayor himself. So that speaks volumes. And when I saw that, I nearly fell off my seat because I've never seen anything like that. And listen, I know they said, well, you know, Eddie Francis, when he was mayor did that too. That was before my time on council, but I could promise you one thing. When Eddie Francis did that, he didn't do it in an election year and he didn't do it because he thought another member of council was going to run. to run against them from there. OK, bringing it back to your platform, Fred. You call for reducing the city's debt burden. Although the platform doesn't specify how much you would reduce it or over what period of time. Earlier this year, you were the only counselor to vote against financing up to roughly $280 million for infrastructure associated with opening sandwich Southlands. At the time, your concern was about taking on that level of debt without more public consultation. But there's another side to the debt question, and this is what I want to ask you about. Municipalities routinely use debt to finance major infrastructure because the asset is going to serve residents for decades, rather than requiring today's taxpayers to pay the entire cost upfront. What do you say to the argument that municipal debt can actually be a responsible way of spreading the cost of a long-term asset over its useful life? And where do you think the line is between responsible borrowing and too much municipal debt? Yeah, that's a good question, Doug. And I do think there's a line. And obviously, anybody can take on debt. And cities are the same way. And sometimes you have to, right? And you've seen the city do that with respect to metal broke and affordable housing, which I think is a responsible way to go about it as long as the lender is the government. And you're getting the borrowing money at a prime rate, 1% or something extremely low. I believe in pay as you go. And when you look at the city's history in the '90s and before that, I think things got a little bit too carried away with respect to that line. And that line was crossed where too many things were being put on the credit card. And too many things are pending on debt. So to answer your question about where the line is, you can never take on more debt where the money you're paying to service that debt is taking away from your operating or capital budgets, right? Because now, if you're paying money to banks for service charges or interest charges on loans, that's money that you're taking away from investing in your assets, in your roads, your sewers, your parks. So what the city did about 25 years ago and what we've done on council in the 12 years that I've been on there since recently is we have a pay as you go approach that we will pay for projects over the course of 10, 20, 30, 50 years. And like I said, we have a $2 billion capital budget. So there's more than enough money to do that. We could self finance projects where the city's paying itself for borrowing money forward from its capital projects. That frees up interest charges you're paying to the banks. So that's something I never want to do. I'd rather have that money go into your neighborhoods into policing, into funding or assets, rather than going to banks and paying for interest charges. Now, there's no debate about developing sandwich selflands. I want to develop sandwich selflands. Every member of council wants to develop sandwich selflands. My disagreement is how we pay for it. Now, recently, the city approved about $119 million of borrowing, right? And I don't know if that's been approved or not, but we delegated that authority to the CAO and I voted against it. The problem with this is this, Doug, is once you take on that $119 million of debt, that interest charge clock starts ticking. You have to pay for those charges right away. So if you're not going to see development at sandwich selflands development charges for 5, 10, 15 years out, who's paying for those interest charges? The taxpayer. So now you're affecting your operating budget and your capital budget. That's money that's going to be taken away from your neighborhoods and other capital investments today, right? Whereas when we're talking about sandwich selflands, we're not talking about developing this swath of land over 10 years. This is going to take decades. We have the time to do it in a phased in approach where we could do it in a pay as you go approach, right? So we could do it over 50 years. We could do it in a way where we don't have to take on debt. And when we don't take on debt, that's interest charges that banks aren't getting. And with that money, we can invest in our neighborhoods into our policing, into our roads, into our sewers, into the priorities that people are telling us to do. I'd rather spend that money on Windsor than give that money to banks. So it's just a different approach of financing. Taking on debt is kind of the easy approach, 'cause you're like, oh, we could just take on $100 million, no problem, and we could do what we got to do. As opposed to not paying for costly legacy projects and rolling up your sleeves and actually going, what is the priority in our capital budget moving forward in 10 years? That's a much harder approach. You have to kind of grind it out, but that's also the more responsible approach. It keeps taxes low and it keeps us focused on the priorities and keeps us within our means. So that's the approach I would take. It's an approach that worked over the last 20, 30 years. And I see no need to all of a sudden change that and start recklessly charging on the city's credit card again, and then just paying the interest charges. That's not responsible, in my opinion. - I'm gonna shift gears again, and I'm gonna pick up from something you said earlier, and some things that I'm finding insight in as you're talking about your experiences and your evolution and what you've learned in the 12 years as counselor. But also your focus on the collaborative approach to leading and governing. And I'm gonna go back to 2022 for a moment on a little bit of a challenge, because when you were deciding whether to run for a third term back in 2022, the Windsor Star reported that you were frustrated with the makeup of the 2018-2022 council. What I find interesting about that is you've actually just mentioned some of the names that I think probably frustrated with you back then. But specifically you felt that council had weakened the influence of what you called at the time, the fiscally responsible counselors. Those, as you put it then, whose priorities were centered, I think similarly to yours on low taxes, paying down the debt and keeping Windsor affordable. So back then you actually said that the makeup of the next council was a significant factor in deciding whether you wanted to run again. And in fact, we're quoted as saying, if I run and I do win, I do wanna be part of the next, I wanna be part of the next term is the term like this. Sorry, I screwed that up, but if I run and if I win, do I want you asked to be part of the next term if it's like this? So every word in this election is a contested election, including the six seats where incumbents are running. And then we have four open seats. So however we slice it, the makeup of the next council is very much up in the air. If you're elected mayor and giving your previous comments, it voters elect a council that doesn't look like what you would hope it is. How will that impact your ability to lead? How is some of what you've said tie into to that answer? - Yeah, no, it's a good question. And I'm looking forward to this council and I, like I said before, I think change is good. And you're probably gonna have about 50% turnover, right? Give or take. So that's a good thing. New energy, new ideas, new perspectives. The one thing I've learned is as the head of council and I get this from a council perspective. And listen, I'll be honest, at one point I was a councilor in the loop and then it became a councilor other the loop. So I kinda have different perspectives. And it's kind of been a good thing because now I know what that feels like and I know what needs changing. So as mayor, I would bring everyone in. I'm gonna have regular conversations. We're gonna have a strategic session once a year and we're gonna say, okay, what are all your ideas? What did you campaign on? What are our priorities? And we're gonna agree to what those are all 11 of us. And then we're gonna hold ourselves accountable every year going, okay, where are we? How do we measure this? You know, councilor one wanted this. Councilor five wanted this. Councilor six wanted this. How are we measuring? And how are we moving towards those goals? Now that's not to say everyone running who wins is gonna be able to get everything they want. But my challenge and my objective is to make sure can everyone who runs and wins, can they get three or four things that they campaigned on over the course of the four years? If we can do that, then I think everyone will be relatively satisfied. Because at the end of the day, the people elect us to work together. We don't always agree, we don't always disagree, but we have to work together. And the one thing I've learned is having those differences of opinion is a lot better around the council table when you don't have differences of opinion. That's something I didn't realize, I think maybe a few terms ago, but I've come to realize and stark reality this term that differences of opinion, differences of philosophy help to make compromise, and that compromise helps us make move forward. But as it relates to working with everybody, I think there's no stronger indication of that than me saying, I'm gonna give up strong mere powers. I'm not gonna veto anything. I'm gonna rely on my power of persuasion and common sense and putting together a reasonable plan in front of everyone to get buy in. And it's not that hard to get five other people around the council table to agree with you, to get six total votes if what you're proposing makes sense and it's reasonable and people favor it. If you can't get five other people around the council table to agree with you, then what you're proposing, you have to go look at it and rework it because it's not a good proposal, right? That's what I've learned. And I've said it before, I'll say it again, in Windsor with 11 elected officials, a strong mere does not need strong mere powers because it is not that difficult to get five other counselors to agree with you if what you are proposing is make sense and reasonable. - Okay. Last week, we asked Mayor Dilkins about economic diversification. He said, "It would be quite a stretch to think you're going to move the needle on diversification in any meaningful way, and that it's always going to be incremental." Your platform calls for supporting growth in renewable energy, technology, health sciences, aerospace, and tourism. Do you agree with the mayor that meaningful economic diversification is necessarily an incremental process, or do you think a Francis administration can move the needle faster? I think we can move the needle faster. Obviously, where a manufacturing town, heavy industrial, tool, and died, and that's really our strong suit, and there's nothing wrong with that, and we'll continue to go for those investments in a Francis administration. We can't lose sight of the tech startups, the entrepreneurs, the small businesses. I read or report the other day that 80% of local jobs are created by small business and entrepreneurs. We have to open up City Hall to businesses as well. We have to reduce the red tape for people to do business, to do business at City Hall. We have to offer more full digital services. There's no reason why you have to wait months on end or weeks on end for a permit, right? You should be able to walk into City Hall, or better yet, go on your phone, fill out a permit, fill out a license, and say, you know, you're going to have this back in a week, you could budget and plan accordingly. That's what we want to do. So obviously, we'll go after the big fish, and we have, City Council has done that with next star, with minth. Those are all City Council decisions, the whole collective body. And we'll continue to go after that, but we will not ignore, and we cannot ignore startups, the tech sector, entrepreneurs, the service sector, the health science sectors. We can't ignore that because that's how we build, and that's how we diversify our economy, and that's something my administration will do. But you did, to go back to an earlier question about debt. This is one of the reasons why I'm so debt averse, because when you look at taking on debt, that locks in your priorities for 20, 30 years, depending on how much debt you take. That limits your flexibility, and we need the financial flexibility so we can provide community incentive programs, tax grants, tax incentive programs, small business grants, small business programs, employment opportunities, employment services, and programs. That's how we pay for those things, with the financial flexibility we have. If we take on a huge amount of debt, that limits your flexibility, that narrows your priorities moving over the next few decades, and that ties up your money with banks and interest charges, as opposed to investing in those programs that will help small business owners, help local workers, help entrepreneurs to create the jobs that we want. It's a multi-pronged approach, and I think you can do it in a very quick way, without ignoring one sector over another, but certainly taking the approach that's going to be incremental and it can't be done quickly, I think it's just the wrong type of thinking to approach the future with. Okay, so kind of related, and again, referring to your platform, you address the notion of the city hall bill, the total cost of municipal services to residents, whether that cost comes through taxation or a fee or some other charge. When I read that with a lot of interest, it's something that we've talked about on the show before, and I think it's interesting to think about, but it seems to me that different resident groups will have very different city hall bills. Someone who is transit dependent will have a different bill than a car commuter. Parents with kids who count on city rec programs will have a different bill than a single person and so on. So, I want to ask, what's the intent of this notion from your perspective, and what's the profile of the resident that you want to find savings for? And there's no particular profile that I'm thinking about, that one segment of the population I'm trying to find savings for, I want to find savings for everybody. Affordability is a huge challenge, and people are struggling to make ends meet and pay their bills month to month. And those are the residents I'm concerned with, is what can we do to ease the financial burden on them? I think we're long past just looking at property taxes, you know, and we can't play the shell game of, well, we're going to reduce property taxes, but your water charges are going to go up, or your user fees are going to go up. So when we look at, you know, it could be family of, you know, two, three, four, whatever. And if they're paying property taxes and their water bills and they have a kid in gymnastics or their kids going to the Capri Center or some other recreational center for swimming lessons, I want to factor that in. I want council to have an informed decision knowing all that data. Let's talk about transit and I'll be making a transit announcement tomorrow. This air is on Friday, right? Yeah. Okay. So I'll be making an announcement tomorrow where we want to cap the transit fees at 395 for the next two years, and we have a plan to do that because listen, I know someone might say, well, you know, a dollar here or a dollar there for transit, no big deal. But if you're taking the bus to and from work five days a week, you know, over the course of the year, that adds out, that could, that could be 200 to $350 depending on how often you take the bus. And think about this, that's just costs that just went up without you doing anything. You know what I mean? And if you're working a minimum wage job and you didn't receive a salary increase, you just lost out towards two, three hundred dollars without even doing anything or spending anything extra. So that's the type of a fill affordability lens we want to take. Everyone from taking the bus to everyone paying property taxes to everyone going to a community center for either dance, swimming or whatever it is. But we want to look at all that to ensure council has the full data to understand what can we do to balance out the cost. Now when you look at the city's operating budget, it's about 1.1, 1.2 billion dollars, half of that, about 500 million dollars comes from the property taxes. Everything else comes from everything else, user fees, licensing permits, tickets, everything, all other sources of revenue, including senior level government funding, right? So in order for council to make an informed decision on what affordability really is for the people that live in the city, they need to know what the full bill is. And that's the lens we want to take, because I think it's time that we take that lens. I think we've ignored it, well, I want to be fair, I don't want to say ignored it, but I think we've put the focus only on property taxes and that that's allowed other things to go up like user fees and trains it and waste water charges. We have to incorporate all those expenses to understand what a household is paying. And if we could reduce that affordability, if we can make things more affordable and reduce that cost, that's what I want to do. Okay. Well, this is one of the things that we talked about with this year's budget, that we saw those user fees increasing, we saw transit fees increasing. Were you in favor of this year's budget? And when you look at next year's budget, how are you going to, these things don't jive for me, like, are we going to have those fees increasing and downloaded onto some of the people who rely most heavily on municipal services, or are we going to see taxes increase? The two don't match up. Yeah. I wasn't in favor of this year's budget until we got the changes we wanted. And if you remember, we were able to cap the user fees, transit did go up, but not as much as the proposal was, I think it was a 9% proposal and a number of councils were against that. So the councilors went to work behind the scenes and we went public with what we didn't agree with. And we were able to work out a compromise that the council approved, myself included. So we were able to get those user fees down, but we didn't like what was first being proposed. As it relates to 2027 budget, I don't know what that's going to look like. We haven't received those documents. As a councilor, we're not involved in that process. That's something as mayor I want to change. It's not just mayor and administration, but councilors and members of the public should be far more involved in that process from day one, as opposed to while here are the printed materials. Tell us what you think. I've never liked that process. I want people to get involved before the materials get printed. So that can inform the decisions moving forward. I think I don't know, but I think the 2027 budget is going to be horrible. And I think it's going to be worse than I can tell you now, hopefully we win. And I could get in there and can tell you exactly what the details are and we can make those changes, but it's going to be relatively quick turnaround. The next council takes office, I think November 15th. And I think you have to submit a budget by February. So we're going to have to see what's in there and we're going to have to see what can be done. But what I can promise you is we're going to be open and transparent about it. And we're going to tell you everything you might not know now. So you actually know where the money is being spent and how bad things are. But I expect 2027 to be a challenging year without knowing the full details. That's just my gut reaction. And I won't know until we were able to get in there for successful and really dig into it. >> That actually has been something that's been repeated on the program by even some of the counselors who are seeking reelection. I want to ask a political question before we sort of start to wind down on the interview. Mine is more of a political question rather than your plan for. It's about the fact that you've deliberately chosen a very prominent former federal politician with a very long established political identity to run your campaign. And of course I'm talking about former NDP and Pete Brian Massey. You both, your political identity around fiscal year. responsibility and holding the line on taxes and and and very much a lot of what you said today I think sort of indicates that's your natural inclination. You sort of lean into that strength of where you are. Brian Massey has you know spent much of his political career advocating for a very different kind of approach to government spending and public investment. So in some ways I think people who look at your campaign can actually see some of those elements in the platform that you rolled out. I think the Windsor Star characterized it as you know the political odd couple and and you know I thought you were response to that indicating that you thought it demonstrates sort of this desire to build a big tent across you know all political stripes and ideologies and well I think you know a big tent sounds good in a campaign you know governing means making decisions and that may inevitably disappoint some of those people in that tent that you're gathering there. Sort of what are the underlying principles that you have do you think are going to actually you know is it going to come down to when you have to make some difficult choices and when those differences arise? Yeah it's a good question you know Brian's been a friend I've known Brian since I was 18 before I've really gone into politics myself before maybe even even even understood the differences between the political parties. So I've known Brian for a very long time and he's always been a friend always been a supporter and I've supported him. I've never been a member of a political party even though a lot of people thought we you know Eddie and I were always conservative maybe they'll go perhaps they're liberal but it's funny I've never been accused of being a member of the NDP and now now people are accusing me of that and it's nothing wrong with that right but I always get a chuckle of that because I'm like oh I've never heard that before my whole life everyone thought I was either a conservative or liberal but I've never been a member of any party and what I've always done with my support is I've always tried to support the individual who I think best represents me at Queens Park or Parliament Hill. I've never gotten too much into party lines and I voted conservative I voted liberal and I voted NDP in my life so I always try to vote for who I think is the best person. Last year I endorsed Lisa Gretzky because I've worked with Lisa I know how much she you know cares about the community I've endorsed Brian before you know I've worked with Eric before and others so I always tried to pick out the individual but you're right Pat that's what I want to do and listen this is the approach I want to take based on what I've learned and I've grown as an individual and as a politician is I know I don't know everything and I want to learn and I love learning and I love learning from other people so I need to know as mayor you can't just turn off a segment of the population because you disagree with them or you can't you know you know turn off you know ideologies or thought processes I want to be selfish I want to be selfish and I want to learn from everybody I want to learn all the different ideas I want to learn all the different perspectives and you're right then we have to make an informed decision so you know we're having a lot of conversations with folks over the last since we come out in August and I'm not making any promises that I think are unreasonable what I'm telling people is this you're gonna have you're gonna have access to me you're gonna have an opportunity to come and tell me what you think we're gonna agree we're gonna disagree at the end of the day I'm gonna have to make a decision council is gonna have to make a decision but you will always have an opportunity to have your voice heard and voice actually considered at City Hall if we agree fantastic if we disagree at least you will understand why we disagree and you'll feel that you've been respected and you've been heard but I know I don't have the market on good ideas I know other people have great ideas other people have good ideas and I want to engage with them I want them to feel that they have a welcoming seat at the City Hall table be counselors members of the public or labor or business or whomever they need to come and be able to tell me as mayor what they think is best for the city and my job is to bring that to council in a package in some kind of you know package deal that says okay this is what we think is best but here's here's other opinions here's the the difference side of the story what do you guys think right that's what I want to do and that's in my opinion how we make informed decisions when you know everything you know all the different you know philosophies all the different perspectives and then you make a decision and the people that might disagree with that decision I think can live with that so long as they understand why you made that decision and they feel that they are actually heard and in my experience that's that's how I would like to do business at City Hall well I just want to say oh sorry Pat I jumped on you no that's okay Christian I we might be going in the same place I guess uh when we're talking about these political you know divergent sort of political philosophies not so much partisan or even on the spectrum but one you know wants usually some investment we can all an investment or services or something that costs money and the other one is we don't have the money right and I think that when those tensions sort of um uh get there I guess fundamentally uh you know I'm asking about the principle that will drive you and I hear that you're very collaborative and I I do believe that you will pull people into the room and and have these conversations but at the end of the day a decision has to be made you know what weight is you know the thread that we've known for 12 years on council going to have in that decision in in in the sense of we got to balance the budget you know we can't increase taxes we actually can't afford that yeah and let me be clear it's going to come down to common sense and if it's practical or not now I'm not saying we're going to be at 0% every year that's impossible taxes will go up I mean it's it's an inevitability you can't you can't run away with that are there going to be some years where taxes go up yes are there going to be some years where taxes are at 0 I hope so and I'm planning for it but there has to be a balance and at the end of the day what I guess my fundamental opinion is it's not going to just come down to me I don't I don't want to use strong mere powers I don't want to use a veto I want to work with the other 10 members of council and like I said before if I can't convince at least five other members of council that what I'm proposing is right then what I'm proposing is not right and then I have to go back to the drawing board and go okay what can we what can what can we all live with what can we get past that city council I don't want to be a one-man show I don't think that benefits the city at all I'm not a fan of strong mere powers I'm not a fan of the veto and I I want to work with the rest of council because at the end of the day people elected 10 of us or 11 of us to work together and that's what we need to do and you know I feel pretty confident in my ability to convince others and in reason with others and and and put together a common sense agenda and like I said before it's not that difficult to get five other people to agree with you at the council table so long as what you're proposing makes sense and is practical if you can't get five other people to agree with you then what you're proposing doesn't make sense and it's not practical and you got to go back to the drawing board okay let's let's shift gears a little bit now we're we're in the home stretch um Fred what's the opportunity that you see for Windsor right now that we're not taking full advantage of yeah I say you know we can make things a lot more affordable and we can really really focus on affordable housing you know and I think that will really really move the needle on the homelessness challenges that we're seeing for whatever reason the focus has been shifted to a shelter based model as opposed to a housing first model we get to shift that focus back to a housing first model with affordable housing social housing rent supplements and more supports I think if we do that you'll see the number of homelessness in this community reduce last time I checked the stats I think that recent came out is home the amount of people in Windsor that were homeless doubled in about a year you know if that doesn't tell you what we're doing is not working then you know we're missing an opportunity so to answer a question Doug I think that's something we could do relatively quickly put the focus back on housing first with supports that keeps people in permanent housing and then we should see a decline in homelessness and really see a positive impact there I think that's priority number one and obviously that will help revitalize our downtown and change the entire dynamic of our downtown that's something that needs to be priority number one and I think that's an opportunity we're missing out on right now so I think we're already going to get in trouble that we've given this mayoral candidate the most amount of time so I think I'm going to have to ask one final question before we could probably ask you a lot more we really thank you for coming I'm having a great time by the way I can see you guys all night I can do this all night there you go you're going to be back you know if elected I want to ask you this question as sort of the last one and we look ahead four years to 2030 what's one thing that Fred Francis wants to say that you can point to that you will be able to say you've changed yeah I'll give you three things I want to see a revitalized downtown I want to see the homelessness situation in Windsor improved dramatically and I want to see a positive culture shift at City Hall if if I don't know if we'll be able to do all that in four years but so long as we could begin the process of improving all those aspects in four years that's something I'll be satisfied with Fred thanks so much for joining us tonight and take the time to have this conversation we really appreciate you coming on and all our listeners thank you for tuning in don't forget to look for our bonus candidate interviews we'll be dropping starting next week as always we like we very much appreciate the support of lioness 65 I'm Pepe. I'm happy to ask along with the Xartory and Christen Siapas. Thanks for listening to Row City Politics.