Comment
The Five
No one wants to be critical. The ambition of creating affordable housing in our community is noble. Worthy. Yet there is a vast difference between wanting something and recklessly burning taxpayer dollars to make it happen. Just how hard is evidenced by the eight years of fruitless effort and vast resources expended by the County’s arms-length Housing Corp, which has, so far, failed to produce a single affordable unit.
Good intentions—unscrutinized and unexamined— lead inevitably to bad decisions. Repeated failure and incompetence can, over time, acquire a strange appeal. Who doesn’t want to root for the underdog? Especially when playing with other people’s money. The longer folks are allowed to chase their tail without results, the more they come to believe that divine intervention— or a “magic wand waver” as one councillor put it last week—will make everything better. Surely their luck must change soon. Baby needs a new pair of shoes.
They come to believe they are destined for success—if only they keep moving forward. If their cause is righteous, even math and physics will give way before it.
FIVE council members sit on the Housing Corp board. They outnumber the public members. It’s a problem. Phil St-Jean chairs the board. Brad Nieman is vice chair. They are joined by Councillors Kate MacNaughton, John Hirsch and Sam Grosso.
The five councillors appear to be under the influence of aliens or hallucinogens. They talk of angels and of magic. They so badly want their project built that they seem to have lost their minds. They’ve forgotten that it is their duty to scrutinize public investment as if it were their own.
Instead, the FIVE have become hucksters for a rickety Ponzi scheme.
They refuse to ask the difficult questions and have become blind to the hazards directly in front of them. Oblivious, it seems, to the fireswamp of risk they appear determined to drag the municipality into. (See story here).
They are in so deep that they have come to believe their own bovine excrement. They believe that if they somehow manage to scrape together enough cash and deliver it to the saintly Ottawa builder—that it will unleash a torrent of funding opportunities. They know this because the builder told them so.
They speak of themselves as newlyweds attempting to buy their first home—shaking their fists at funding agencies who have repeatedly chosen not to fund the Housing Corp’s business plan, their inexperience and their lack of rigour. The FIVE regard prudence and caution as a hurdle to overcome.
They have become utterly delusional—dislodged from their primary responsibility to probe, analyze and challenge assumptions. Questions such as: How much will they pay for a $2.1 million mortgage over 45 years? (A: $4.68 million, including $2.5 million in interest.) What happens when the untested rental team can’t find renters to pay their posted rates? Or, when renters fail to pay their rent? Or property values decline? Or the product fails to withstand wear and tear? Will it be agile enough to compete in the rental marketplace? Or looked at from another direction—which municipal priorities or plans must be shelved to fund the County’s venture into residential landlording?
It’s a problem because all the FIVE need are a couple more councillors to join their doom cult for this disaster to get off the ground.
Yet they know the right answer—or should know it by now.
Councillor and board member John Hirsch is confident the Housing Corp will be successful in winning funding from the new Build Canada Fund. Great!
If he is right, Hirsch claims the Housing Corp can deliver 8 affordable units rather than the 3 currently on the table. Also great!
If the funding is successful, the Housing Corp won’t need County taxpayers to backstop their business plan. If they land the funding, it will prove they were right to keep pushing. The naysayers were wrong. Their efforts will be vindicated. The risk/reward balance will be restored. All good things!
For these reasons, the Housing Corp must wait until Build Canada says yes or no. It is time to acknowledge that there is no other way forward. There is no prudent or rational basis for proceeding without this federal funding. Bide your time. Make a strong application. Put your best argument forward. Know that it is your only way forward.
The challenges of operating a residential building without experience or expertise will remain. But the risk won’t be entirely borne by County taxpayers.
Get a grip and wait for Build Canada funding.
How do we get answers as to why 5 Councilors sit on the Housing Board when the governance states a maximum of two (2)?
I would suggest writing to the Mayor, and your Ward Councillor, as well as the CAO. Adam Goheen is no just our Chief Administrative Officer, as well as the Acting Director of Housing – he is listed with the names of the PECAHC Governance Team.
All of them may be reached here:
https://www.thecounty.ca/contact-us/
A QUESTION:
How did this Corporation go from having a maximum of two members of Council, to the present FIVE representatives?
I’m getting very tired of the “appearance of dirty politics and using loopholes” by a select few in Council. Clean up your damned Act.
On the PEC Affordable Housing Corporation Website:
CURRENT LINK: https://www.thecounty.ca/government/municipal-projects/corporate-strategic-initiatives/pec-affordable-housing-corporation/
Governance and Membership
The Board of Directors for the Prince Edward County Housing Corporation will consist of nine members. The board will include a MAXIMUM OF TWO MEMBERS OF COUNTY COUNCIL.
Thanks for this Teena. How could this be? It would appear that the majority of members are Councilors. How do they explain this? Is it possible this Corporation is not a legal entity?
I have no bloody idea, Gary, but I’ve quite sincerely had it with these Councillors! And we’re paying these people? We’re actually electing them to represent and speak on our behalf? Not seeing much of that here at all. They wouldn’t know a Conflict of Interest if it bit ’em on the arse.
As for Transparency and Accountability? Better ask the Clerk to do a damn thorough job of revising that Draft Council Code of Conflict. It comes before Council, along with the Integrity Commissioners Report during the June 23rd meeting.
As for our new Integrity Commissioner, here’s a recap of his appointment in PEC:
LINK: https://www.countylive.ca/council-expected-to-appoint-new-integrity-commissioner/
However, not long AFTER he was hired by our Council, this hit the news:
https://thepointer.com/article/2025-10-11/after-integrity-commissioner-called-public-oversight-of-his-work-a-political-circus-caledon-stopped-his-outrageous-move-to-silence-residents
I wonder if Council is even aware of this. If so, then why is this IC still employed here? He certainly isn’t a good fit. Unless, of course, you’re in favour of Councillor St-Jean wanting to have that little gem of his installed in our Code of Conduct for OUR deputations, whereby he insisted that we NOT be allowed to criticize our Council or Staff? Some members of Council rightfully reminded this Councillor that they are our elected officials, we pay them, and they report to us. And that word, “criticize” had been adjusted to be more palatable.
And, isn’t that a joke?
The PECAHC Board Chair and another Councillor on the Board are the only two declared candidates at this time, for the Strong Mayor job in the October election.
If elected, they will be able to use their considerable new Strong Mayor power to ram through the commitment of County Taxpayer dollars for the 3 “affordable” units in the 8-unit Disraeli Street project, to be built by Ottawa-based Theberge Construction Limited:
Waived building and connection fees absorbed by the County –> $108,000
Total shortfall between bank financing and build cost –> $463,000 (based on Finance Director Arryn McNicol’s warnings of an UN-FINANCED gap of roughly $463,000 that will fall directly onto County taxpayers.
All of the above, PLUS the County will have to cover the 20.4% monthly cash-flow deficit caused by the 0.796 Debt Service Ratio to prevent mortgage default. And will be responsible for over 2 MILLION dollars financed over the next 45 years.
Who will step forward to register for the Mayor’s role? If no one else does, this can not and will not be stopped.
Actually I misspoke in my earlier comment at 8:30 AM.
The PECAHC Board Chair is running for Councillor in Ward 1 – Picton.
The declared candidates thus far for Strong Mayor are Brad Nieman, who is one of “The Five” Councillors on the PECAHC Board, and pushing for the County funding as described.
The other declared candidate thus far for Strong Mayor is Ernie Margetson, whose views today may or may not be different than in the past, when he was one of the inaugural Directors of PECAHC. We need to hear from him on his take on this project specifically.
Does anyone know if Ernie Margetson [candidate for mayor] is still connected in any way with the PEC Affordable Housing Corporation. Can someone ask him directly? I’m not seeing a recent connection here [so far just 2019], and it’s possible I’m missing that. Still, it would be good to know where he stands on this mess before anyone condemns, or praises him. Facts first and foremost, everyone, please.
Hopeful – do you have anything current on this? Can you clarify, please?
Hi Hopeful.
Our comments came in at the same time, and you gave me what I wanted to know. Thank you!
Enough is enough. This Corporation perhaps with original good intentions has failed miserably. What was to be at arms length from Council is anything but. 5 Councilors dominating a sub Corporation is not arms length. They have already sucked $700,000 of taxpayers dollars, and looking for $500,000 more. For what? 3 affordable units. This is sheer misuse of Taxpayer dollars. And we haven’t addressed wages and staff costs for this ill devised venture. Please end the nonsense. No informed citizen would invest in this boondoggle. Ask, Mr Harrison, Mr Penell, Mr Englesdorfer, Mr Prinzen, Mr Braney, Mr Roberts, Ms Branderhorst.
Those Councillors names are important if the taxpayer wants this mess shut down. The “Five”, as they apparently have no intention of declaring any sort of Conflict, do not have to. And, even if the Integrity Commissioner advised them to do so, they can ignore him as well, apparently. So he is unable to “step in” and get these Councillors to behalf themselves. They can just ignore him, like they fully intend on ignoring us.
Look up: “Section 4.(h) of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act 9”MCIA”)
The Mayor should know better, and demand COI from these Councillors, and the rest of Council and the CAO should back a complete shut down of this Corporation. They set it up. They can damned well tear it down.
Ask Councilor Harrison or Councilor Penell what they think of this boondoggle! Bring it on. Make it an Election issue as if it’s not already.
Clarify please? Why those two members of Council in particular? Just asking, because I don’t know.
Thanks.
Never mind. Found some things:
Link: https://wellingtontimes.ca/holes/
Harrison: Probably the one and only time in four years I’ve been able to agree with this particular Councillor. He got it spot on.
Link: https://wellingtontimes.ca/council-out/
Pennell: Would Warings Creek stood a better chance if some Councillor paid heed?
Mr. Guslits
You’d like me to applaud you for having a vision?
It’s so easy to have a vision when using other people’s money. How very cavalier of you.
Your hubris and arrogance are astonishing, you get no applause from me.
@Mark Guslits – with respect, using your experience with the City of Toronto’s “Let’s Build Affordable Housing” program to discuss what could be done with Prince Edward County’s PECAHC enterprise, is comparing “chalk with cheese”.
For example, a simple Google search with the query “what is the population of the metro area served by the City of Toronto’s Let’s Build Affordable Housing Program” shows:
“The metropolitan area explicitly served by the City of Toronto’s housing programs has an estimated population of 3.27 million people within the city proper, while the broader Greater Toronto Area (GTA) it impacts encompasses a population of approximately 6.7 million people.”
The City of Toronto’s Let’s Build Affordable Housing Program was launched in a different time – 1999. And it took approximately 3.5 years to get to where tenants could occupy any “affordable” units, even with the considerable critical mass, size and resources of Toronto.
PECAHC was launched in 2018, and has delivered 0 units to date, despite spending hundreds of thousands of County treasury. Now the 5 Councillors, led by one of the 2 candidates for the “Strong Mayor” position in the October election, is asking for the County treasury to fund MILLIONS more over a time horizon of 45 years, to deliver … wait for it … 3 units.
And the earliest possible date that the fortunate 3 tenants could get the keys to their spanking new “affordable” units is 2027, almost 10 years after the enterprise was launched.
It’s great that you want to share your Toronto experience. But, (assuming that you now pay property taxes to the County), do you enjoy the prospect of sharing your County tax dollars for such a project?
If recent public info is to be believed, the PECAHC wants the County to waive $108,000 in municipal connection fees and building permit charges, and then allow a drawdown of $2,625,000 from a municipal “line of credit” to pay the Ottawa modular builder (Theberge Construction Limited) as work begins.
Here is a summary of the financials:
Taxpayer funds spent to run PECAHC between 2019–2022 –> $770,000
Waived building and connection fees absorbed by the County –> $108,000
Total shortfall between bank financing and build cost –> $463,000 (based on Finance Director Arryn McNicol’s warnings that First National Bank’s commitment to the County only covers $2,162,000 of the $2,625,000 build cost, leaving an un-financed gap of roughly $463,000 that will fall directly onto County taxpayers.
All of the above, PLUS the County will have to cover the 20.4% monthly cash-flow deficit caused by the 0.796 Debt Service Ratio to prevent mortgage default.
All this for … wait for it … 3 (Three) “affordable” rental units.
Because PECAHC cannot magically generate market revenues from capped affordable units, the yearly operational deficit will roll back into the County’s annual budget cycle, forcing local property taxpayers to subsidize the shortfall.
You and the other Board members may be comfortable with your share of the property tax increases that will be required to fund this.
I certainly am not.
I would, however, consider the idea of the County “subsidizing” 3 lucky tenants for the difference between current “market” rent and “affordable” rent.
The proposed Disraeli Street project would deliver ONE 1-bedroom and TWO 2-bedroom units. Current difference between “market” and “affordable” rent for a 1-bedroom unit in PEC is $666 per month (no joke) and $800 per month for a 2-bedroom unit.
Such a subsidy would then cost County taxpayers $2,266 per month to deliver affordable housing for the 3 lucky tenants.
For comparison, the monthly carrying cost for the $770,000 ALREADY BLOWN by the PECAHC since 2018, is at least $3,800 per month, possibly more depending on the interest rate the County has paid over that time (which is NOT disclosed).
This is not financial wizardry, nor smoke and mirrors. The whole approach of trying to get a Toronto / Ottawa solution to a County problem has been flawed from the start, and this enterprise must be shut ASAP to prevent further waste of time and resources while people wait for a solution to their problems.
A very deft, and definitive, analysis by Parachute. Kudos!
The issue is whether The Five will acknowledge, in an election year, that this HousingCorp. fiasco is a textbook example of the sunk cost fallacy. And will they vote now for the winding up of the corporation and the writing off of $700+K.
The hapless County taxpayer has had enough of this fantastical boondoggle. Enough!
As St Jean requests a Public Apology, Councilor Prinzen yells at the Mayor to step in! Too funny!
As one of the non-Councillors on the Affordable Housing Corporation Board, I thought I’d weigh in on a topic very near and dear to me. I’ve devoted most of my adult professional life to the creation of non-profit, co-op and affordable rental housing (as an architect and developer and with the City of Toronto) – in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, the UK, South Africa and here in the County. And what I’ve learned over the last 40 years here in Canada and abroad, is that making affordable housing “happen” is almost impossible. The “numbers” never work. Neighbourhoods are always suspect of Councillors supporting it. The private sector is accused of bringing density to “our” community. And young people, the elderly, new immigrants and local “workers” all suffer because of letters, op-ed pieces and articles condemning a Municipality for trying to address an impossible problem. My experience as Head of the City of Toronto’s Let’s Build Affordable Housing Program and Director of Development for the City’s Housing arm – Toronto Community Housing Corp is that, in spite of the insurmountable challenges, you can, if you have a committed Municipal Government partnering with the private sector – make affordable housing happen. Not hope, not wish, …. But make!! it happen. And we here in the County are lucky enough to have 5 very committed Councillors and 3 local citizens with experience they wish to share. Members of the Board, both Councillors and private citizens meet with committed and very hard-working City officials like Housing Director Elis Ziegler – after hours, on weekends and late into the evening. We, together with the private sector, have the ability and commitment to make this housing happen. Slowly at first. With missteps along the way. But it will happen. First on Disraeli – very soon. Then on Niles. And then in all parts of the County. But only If those who are prone to be critical of struggling yet badly needed new initiatives….. calm down and stop looking for COI’s and money pits and fairy tales. Start looking for new Affordable Housing. On a corner near you. And applaud those that will ultimately make it happen.
Those so-called “missteps along the way” you mention, are costing the few paltry 16,000 taxpayers of Prince Edward County money we can’t afford in order to prop up this venture. The entire project would be best handed over to the Provincial and Federal level, as they are the ones insisting Canada must build affordable homes – everywhere the Country – but nowhere are they putting in regulations to enforce the developers to make sure a certain percentage of each and every build be affordable for the area they intend to develop. We’re bleeding money in this County – with 40% of our taxes going to employ Staff at Shire Hall, amongst other items on the so-called 2026 Budget Agenda, and now this “small ask” of “$400,000.” What, exactly, has this Affordable Housing Corporation to show us for the money already provided, and vanished [$700,000?], other than further debt and facing a 45+/- year mortgage to leave our children and grandchildren? Are salaries being paid out of that money? Travel/hotels/meals/meetings? I sure as Hell don’t know. Convince the people who are going to have to foot the bill first, before going to Council.
As for “stop looking for COI’s and money pits and fairy tales” – how about you and the taxpayers have that particular discussion if, and/or when, you decide to run to represent the residents of Picton as their Ward Councillor or, better yet, all of the residents of Prince Edward County as our new Mayor, Sir? I have absolutely no reason to doubt your qualifications. I have, however, been given plenty of reason to doubt many in our present Council with regard to how they interpret the intent of the Conflict of Interest Rules, and their laughable and unenforceable Council Code of Conduct – the contents of which many of them were well aware of long ago and choose to conveniently ignore. Like the meanings of right, wrong, integrity, transparency and accountability to those who elected them to represent us.
Your goals are admirable, Sir, and no doubt heartfelt. The execution, thus far though, appears to be in doubt by many residents. Convince us. Leave the Conflict of Interest and lack of application by Council members for the rest of the residents to decide upon, as you appear to have no interest in such matters.
Applaud not. This makes no economic sense no matter how you try to spin it or whatever fairy tale comes to council!
I didn’t see this mentioned on the Agenda. Where is it? I thought everything had to be listed, and transparent. So, why wasn’t this included? As this was a “deputation” of sorts, shouldn’t this have been included as an attachment, like other deputations? And if this document that was being read from has been omitted, what else has been omitted? I’m worried now about what we are, and are not, being told about around here.
Forward to: 1:43:45 to view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCppIYKmpO8&t=14458s
Time to dissolve the housing corporation. They have done absolutely nothing.
Better know what you’re voting for ahead of time.
Note: May 13, 2026 [PEC] Councillor [St-Jean] accuses Newspaper of libel:
https://www.quintenews.com/2026/05/13/councillor-accuses-newspaper-of-libel/
Note: Regular Council – 11 June, 2024, Minutes:
See pg.4 – Item 10, 10.1: Comments from the Audience:
LINK: https://princeedwardcounty.civicweb.net/document/309858/
Note: 12 June, 2024 – quinte news – county to review procedural bylaw:
https://www.quintenews.com/2024/06/12/county-to-review-procedural-bylaw/
Gee. All this and not declaring COI when accepting a campaign donation from someone [or even “anyone”!] he knew would come before him in Council during his term of office, or at the very least send in a representative on their behalf? Wow!
Note: May 13, 2026 [PEC] Councillor [St-Jean] accuses Newspaper of libel:
https://www.quintenews.com/2026/05/13/councillor-accuses-newspaper-of-libel/
Note: Regular Council – 11 June, 2024, Minutes:
See pg.4 – Item 10, 10.1: Comments from the Audience:
LINK: https://princeedwardcounty.civicweb.net/document/309858/
Note: 12 June, 2024 – quinte news – county to review procedural bylaw:
https://www.quintenews.com/2024/06/12/county-to-review-procedural-bylaw/
It hit Quinte News and CJBQ this morning. Quite a tirade!
Looking for an apology at last nights Council Meeting after an attack on the Wellington Councilor. Sparks flew but no apology forthcoming! It’s on the County’s Live Stream.
Watched it. Boy things really blew up. Councilor Prinzen yelling at the Mayor to step in and take control of Councilor St Jean!
Picton dearly needs new representation. Woke and Bloomfield resident Councilors have not cut it. And both sit on the Housing Corporation that has raped the taxpayer of $700,000 and in 7 years have not created a single housing unit. Real time for change.
Why is Phil St Jean running in Picton? Run where you live!
More to the point … why is he running at all? He is Councillor to Picton Ward 1, had the poor judgement to accept a campaign donation of $1,000 from the Port Picton Homes (and other subdivisions by the same developer – and yes, it’s legal) being created in/around Picton, during the 2022 election, and yet has continually failed to report a Conflict of Interest (COI) regarding that donation (our Council Code of Conduct really does need a major overhaul!). But, oddly he saw fit to declare COI regarding his son working at No Frills when Cold Creek subdivision came before Council? And a reminder – this is the same Councillor who tried to convince the Mayor and Council, during this term of office, to put a clause into the Code of Conduct for residents that would BAN us from “criticizing members of Council” during our deputations. He may or may not be a great representative for the Picton residents – I wouldn’t know. But he is certainly not a great representative for PEC residents – and remember, all members of Council are also the members of the Planning and Development Committee. The residents will choose in the end, and I will not tell anyone how to vote – that’s private. But me – I no longer trust nor believe many of the present members of this Council. And yes, it is a FACT, you do not have to live in the Ward your running for, nor even in Prince Edward County, in order to run here.
$100,000 a year, for seven years. Sounds just like the Sunshine List to me. What have we received in return here, other than the promise of more debt?
If any of these Councillors run for re-election, and you are against this, then you know how to vote. I can think of at least two of this “Five” I’d like to see out of Shire Hall, and for reasons other than this.
Definitely a key Election issue. We presently have both Picton Councilors supporting this taxpayer debt! 7 years and absolutely nothing! When do you put it down?
And one of them has just thrown his hat in the ring to be re-elected. Councillors, with no idea of what a conflict of interest is, or transparency or accountability, or whose money is funding what, after all this time on Council. Pity. I had high hopes for this Council in 2022.
Keep up-to-date Folks. We’re in for a bumpy ride.
LINK:
https://www.thecounty.ca/government/election/information-for-candidates/unofficial-list-of-certified-candidates-and-third-party-advertisers/
He doesn’t live in Picton. Why not run in Bloomfield/Hallowell where he lives?
If you can vote in PEC legally, then you can run and live in Temagami. Guess “Zoom” would come in handy then…
Which, by the way, begs the question as to why so many of our Councillors are not voting on seriously important matters when they should be either making themselves available, or having meeting dates rearranged.
I believe 4 of the 5 Councilors sitting on the Housing Board will no longer be on Council come the October election.
One can only hope.
Make it all five and you have a deal!
It’s like the five are just too stubborn to admit the Housing Corporation has failed after 7 years, not one housing unit and owing the County $700,000. No one will invest with this inexperienced group but the five believe the taxpayer should. It’s nonsense!