Comment
Decks and beaches
A mixed bag this week. Those who prefer their commentary favour the sunny and hopeful will be encouraged to stop reading at the end of the first bit.
SUNNY BIT
The County’s Development Services Department will present a proposal this week for a top-to-bottom update to its menu of fees. Everything from subdivision applications to deck permits. From rezoning to Official Plan amendments. Most are rising. Many are flat. I could not find any instance where the fee proposed was lower than it is now.
Homebuilders won’t be thrilled. Nor will your neighbour planning a new garage. There will be grumbles. And there will be entirely justified complaints that these fee increases ought to be considered alongside the onerous security requirements and development charges that continue to hobble new homebuilding in Prince Edward County.
Yet there is much to praise in this rework of these fees. It boils down to method. It is evident in its presentation that the proposed fee structure is the product of a thorough, professional and supportable evaluation. What do we need to do our job? What are the trends shaping our business/service in the near and midterm? And—most importantly—how does the County compare to other municipalities? Nearby communities? Other rural and singletier (similarly governed) municipalities in the province? Is this the right competitive posture to achieve our goals?
There will be quibbles, some legitimate complaints. But for the first time since the County was amalgamated in 1998, Shire Hall is looking at its role, functions, and purpose with clear-eyed recognition that it operates in a competitive marketplace. That the County competes for new homebuilding and investment with other jurisdictions. It reveals a clear-headed understanding that the department’s planning and development processes— including the scale, scope, cost and professionalism of the service it provides—all impact investment and ultimately such factors as livability and affordability. It projects a proud, confident and professional message to anyone with an idea to build something in Prince Edward County.
This development report represents a seismic shift in the way things are done at Shire Hall. The proposal is solid, well researched, and entirely defensible. It sets up a proper conversation.
THE LESS GOOD BIT
In the same meeting, Council will consider new fees for Wellington Beach. Parking fees, day-use fees, boat launch fees etc. Fees are good. This column has long urged the municipality to work harder to participate in the flow of tourism dollars. There are costs to maintaining these facilities in good order. It is entirely fair and appropriate to collect money from users to offset some of these costs.
But such fees must be collected from all users. The proposal before Council this week, however, seeks to discriminate between the local resident and the tourist. It proposes exempting local residents from paying these fees. Perhaps the notion of ‘making visitors pay’ will have broad appeal. It is, nevertheless, wrong, and it is toxic
Way too much of the Tourism Management Plan bears the stench of ‘us and them’. It is an ugly look. Further, it may be illegal to discriminate based upon residency.
The tragic flaw in this overall effort, however, is captured in its title. The goal seeks to manage visitors like we might treat a disease or control an infestation of killer bees. It is dehumanizing. It is unnecessarily discriminating. It is beneath an egalitarian and open community.
The Plan takes a profoundly worse turn when it seeks to ‘Define the problem,’ framing the tourism economy as “eroding the quality of life” of residents. Most vile of all, the Plan proposes a Visitor Pledge—a creepy, hamhanded Orwellian attempt to shape or educate the visiting masses to behave in a manner that pleases us. How far will we go? Will set up classes on how to act in Prince Edward County? Will we refuse entry to the County to those without a certificate demonstrating proficiency in County standards? It is vulgar and unacceptable.
The Plan, as it is currently drafted, rests entirely on the wrong premise. Rather than attempting to balance the wishes of one group of people (residents) with the other (tourists), the ambition ought to be to balance the pressures of the tourism economy with quality of life for everyone—visitors and residents alike. It is not a semantic point. Words matter. It is not us and them.
Every person who visits the beach or launches at Wellington Beach should pay for its upkeep and maintenance. This is such an easy principle. There is no earned right to municipally owned, funded and managed beaches or boat launches. Buying a house in Wellington doesn’t entitle me to any greater right to a day at this beach than anyone else. Nor should it. (And if one day, there is a business and economic case for parking fees in the village—everyone should pay. The same rate.)
Discriminating in this way may be popular. It may even win votes. But it is vile and misguided. Prince Edward County is better than this. We must ask our elected officials to promote “the better angels of our nature” rather than stoke division and intolerance.
There are good ideas in the Plan that will help us work toward improving harmony between residents and the economy that has defined this place for more than a century. But this premise is all wrong.
The tourism economy isn’t a ‘problem.’ It is an opportunity. Let’s make it work better for everyone.
Ironic to read Rick actually saying positive words about an increase in municipal fees. His mantra over the years has been ‘County fees are too high and discourage growth’.
The second part of the opinion piece is more true to form: i.e. tourists are good. Although he does not acknowledge his bias as he used to, we are well aware of his involvement in the tourist industry. I’m not involved in the tourist industry, just a mere resident. As a resident, I do pay fees. We know those fees by another name; taxes. County residents pay taxes to maintain facilities, provide garbage pickup, police usage and so on. Historically it does not seem that the County saw a burden out of beach usage that went beyond what general tax revenue would cover. The last couple of years has seen increasing beach usage in Wellington that came to an ugly head in the summer of 2020. The consequence was a requirement for access enforcement and cleanup well beyond anything needed in the past. Really is it too much to ask that those who have created the problem pay to remedy it?
There are really two classes of tourists that we are facing here in the County. One group are destination tourists. Those folks come here, book rooms at local establishments, eat at local restaurants, buy goods at local stores and generally drop a good chunk of coin here to do so. Another group however, packs up its cooler, jumps in the car and drops in for the day. This group does little to promote the local economy except maybe at Tims. I submit that it is this group that has given tourism a bad rap. If you doubt this, Wasaga Beach has studied this dichotomy and has recognized that the destination tourist is the preferred type to have. Perhaps beach fees, tourist pledges and the like will discourage some day trippers. Perhaps these measures will aid in the cleanup and improve behaviour. Wellington and the County still remain our home. We are entitled to enjoy our home. Tourists are entitled to enjoy a visit here but they are not ENTITLED.
Nice to hear someone that sees both sides of the story. Ive been visiting the county for 50 years owned a summer place for over 30 yearsive seen the beachs packed for years yes there are idiots that dont deserve to enjoy the beach because they donr care how they leave it but thats not every visitor. Last year people complained about trafic etc but ill tell you one thing on july long weeknd the sandbanks beach was full yes but the gov said half capacity so yes it was a zoo in town but the beach was not packed it was a different year and this year will be no different. To ask tourists to pay and not residents is no different than asking coloured people to pay and not white. We all know theres an isue in the county its hard for young people to buy homes the prices are skyrockiting but it is every where. The county needs tourists , i was told last year to get out of the county go home. The county is my home my second home and some 25 year old kid gets mounthy and tells me to leave its not a great feeling. Am i just a tourist? Theres a lot just like my family who love it there, lets all get along and work to make this work. Thanx for seeing things both ways more county folks should be like you.
Here, here to Amrita’s reply
Well … Tourism is a necessary evil. With growing numbers of visitors, comes a growing percentage of people who dont value or respect ” Us”. THIS has promoted the them/ us perspective. It is bad enough “we” can not enjoy our home 6 months of the year, but to ensure outrageous behaviours ( that offend basic common courtesy) is asking too much. Property taxes and municipal fees are extreme here. There ( seemingly ) isnt a safe 5km stretch of road in the county. The fact that we pay these taxes with little benefit should allow “us” to enjoy a small municipally owned beach for free. The provincial government confiscated our greatest asset to their benefit, and our detriment! The province should be paying “us” a percentage / user fee for reaping the fortune of tourism. NOT the other way around. Local government needs to understand that not everyone of “us” benefits from the holy tourism dollar. Most of “us” feel cheated that “we” pay to live and maintain a paradise that is not enjoyable for “us”. A lot of “us” feel the local government and its services are already overcompensated for poor, unfair, unpredictable, and biased productivity. It is not only “them” that are fostering local frustration among residents, our own municipal authority and its policies are contributing also. ** If you have to tell visitors what it means to be a decent human being, than maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to visit in the first place! Better to write and ENFORCE laws with HIGH penalties so that when people decide to disrespect OUR HOME ! they can accept the consequences of THEIR decisions.
Well said. Ours is not a gated community. Pandering to the minority that endlessly complain about their entitlements is not helping us to move forward and embrace the opportunity.
I really dont feel that there is a minority that is being “pandered ” to by local policy, fees, taxes, or opportunity! I truly think the majority of real county residents feel that tourism overwhelms our traffic flow and its physical structures. That ongoing and ever increasing horrific behaviours by visitors is disrespectful and unacceptable. That the business/ company profits> wages > work > tourism related stress , balance is unfavourable and far too demanding of the regular joe worker in our area. I am sad for our community IF those feelings ARE the minority, and the historical response ( grin and bear it for the better good ) is seen as pandering.
Rick,
I’ve worked in the global tourism industry for years. The issues of “overtourism” are not unique to the County.
The things you point out as vulgar are being adopted by destination management organizations all over the world, from Sedona to Iceland. Yes, fun videos teaching tourists how to be sensitive to local ecology, plans that call for tourism that is good for local resident life. Different fees for residents and non residents.
This movement has amplified over the last year. Read any recent article by any travel publication and you will see it.
Where I do think you make a good point is on tone. We can set good policies to manage the impact of tourism while positioning this as good for all and not us vs them.
There is a reason why it’s called destination management and I support efforts to think ahead about how to keep the County sustainable for the long run.