Eroding trust

It didn’t happen. When the Picton councillor asked, a couple of weeks ago, why the Manager of Planning hadn’t reached out to the owner of the roads in Wellington on the Lake about sharing access with another developer to the east, the answer was, “We asked. He told us to go fly a kite.”

Councillors mostly nodded their heads knowingly. Of course, Shire Hall would have checked with the owner of this road. Of course, there would have been intense and pointed discussions with the developer of Wellington on the Lake. Of course, this developer would have been glib and unhelpful. Of course, Shire Hall would not have gone so far down the road with the new developer to the east without making every effort to access that road—to do everything possible not to have a row of homes backing onto an existing street.

Except none of it was true. It was all made up. Conjured out of thin air. Shire Hall now admits that there was no such conversation with the developer about accessing this road for the new development. Nor did anyone at Shire Hall reach out to the owner of the street.

It wasn’t a misinterpretation. It wasn’t confusion about what was said or meant. No conversation happened at all. No one, it turns out, told the planning manager to go fly a kite.

In a statement prepared in response to The Times’ inquires, Shire Hall says miscommunication between staff led to the “incorrect statement.” Shire Hall says it regrets the error and has apologized to the owner of Aletha Drive and the WOTL infrastructure.

We will leave readers to decide what to do about this incident and the response. But as we learn more about this issue, nothing is what it seems.

Rather than obstinate and inaccessible, it turns out that the owner of Aletha Drive is keen to talk to Shire Hall about assuming the infrastructure at Wellington on the Lake (roadways, water lines, garbage collection and such). Rather than rejecting such a conversation, the owner welcomes it and wants it to happen.

In fact, the owner of this infrastructure reached out last fall to do just that. He met with Shire Hall’s senior leadership with a proposal. The owner says he was prepared to put $1 million on the table in exchange for the County assuming these assets. The money, he said, would be committed to fund a portion of the redevelopment of County Road 49.

The offer was rebuffed by Shire Hall staff, according to the owner of Aletha Drive.

Shire Hall confirmed last week that it met with the developer about his proposal last year but described the discussions as informal— that nothing was decided.

“Staff have requested a formal written request that could be included in a report to Council; however, the owner has not provided that written request,” according to a statement from Shire Hall.

The suggestion in this statement is that the owner of the WOTL infrastructure is bluffing— that he had no intention of spending $1 million for the County to assume these assets. There is an easy way to find out. Call his bluff. Assuming bad faith going into negotiations raises serious questions about who is representing the municipal side.

So here we are. The ‘go fly a kite’ conversation never happened. The truth is the opposite— that had a call been made, the owner of Aletha Drive was keen to sit down with Shire Hall to talk about it. Indeed, he had done so—on his own initiative last year. And was ready to put up money to make it happen.

Now, Shire Hall says it is ‘encouraged’ to hear the owner is willing to have a conversation about access to Aletha Drive, and says it would be willing to participate in such discussions.

That Shire Hall is ‘encouraged’ suggests that the owner of this infrastructure has changed his tune. Instead, he is the only consistent actor in this episode.

Lest readers fear your columnist believes such a conversation would be easy, let me be clear: it would not. The owner is looking to get out from under the responsibility for this infrastructure. He will pay as little as he can get away with to make this happen. He will seek to maximize his self-interest. So would you in this circumstance.

Further, there are risks and costs associated with assuming this infrastructure. But those risks already exist for the municipality—even when it doesn’t own them.

It was evident last July when the neighbourhood’s water tested negatively. Days went by before it was clear who was responsible. Ultimately, whether right, reasonable or fair, it is the municipality that will be held to account for the safety and sustainability of this infrastructure. Better to have these discussions before bad things happen. Better to settle this outside of an emergency.

This strange chapter, however, has revealed serious gaps in accountability and transparency in the workings of our local government. Government only works when our representatives ask questions and get truthful answers they can rely upon. When this contract breaks down—when they don’t ask questions, insist on answers or get truthful answers—it all does. Credibility is shattered. Confidence that this institution is working in the interest of residents has endured a deep wound.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca