County News
Too good to fail
Housing Corp to ask council to cover its funding gap
The County’s Affordable Housing Corporation is running out of time. If they aren’t able to give their builder the green light soon, they may have to abandon their plans for an eight-plex (three affordable apartments) in Picton this year. Yet the Housing Corp remains about $400,000 short of what it needs to fund the project.
While some board members cautioned against proceeding until the money is found, the majority argued that the virtue of their purpose was too important, and that, as a group, they had come too far, worked too hard, and were so close to their goal that they could not turn back now.
So the Housing Corp board agreed on Monday to ask the County council for the money (about $108,000 through a waiver of municipal fees and the balance in cash) to get them across the finish line.
But before that happens, the board will ask the County’s Finance Director to identify where he might find the money, if Council instructs him to do so. It puts the Finance Director in an untenable position—guarding municipal finances, while simultaneously facilitating a risky investment. But the board is beyond such niceties.
It is stuck. Unwilling to step back from the brink, and without the means to span the chasm, they must rely on others to see them across—to join them in their venture.
At least one board member understands that the lender won’t commit funds until it knows the Housing Corp’s funding is locked down—that the funding gap poses a significant vulnerability to the Housing Corp and its board. While the Housing Corp may use a County loan to fund construction, upon completion, the construction loan must be repaid. If there is no lender, when the hammers stop swinging, the County will be stuck funding the entire enterprise.
Discussion of pragmatism and risk, however, was soon overwhelmed by board members’ optimism that their ambition was too good to fail.
“The only risk is for the [Finance Director] is that the municipality is being left behind in terms of creating affordable housing,” said public board member Mark Guslits. He suggests the board’s failure to attract federal and provincial governments stems from a lack of track record and its struggles to get this project off the ground.
“It’s not a big deal,” insisted Guslits. “Sure, we have a few ducks to put in place, but we are going to build this housing. We can start now, or start next year, but I’d rather start as soon as we can. Even if we don’t finish this year, we will be moving forward with something that we can parlay into the other projects that we have in mind.”
Another public board member said she wants to have faith that the community and Council can see the big picture.
“We are missing just 10 per cent,” said Penny Morris. “I feel it is really important at this time not to slow down. We are in the last little run for the Disraeli Street funding.”
Morris pointed to positive “verbal support” from the federal government and “some verbal support” from the province that the board should press on—despite the funding gap.
“I have faith in our community and our Council,” said Morris.
With that, the Housing Corp board agreed it would ask Council for the missing 10 per cent.
I explored the “Conflict of Interest” (COI) topic using Google AI today, which anyone can do. While AI is certainly capable of making mistakes, in general it is reasonably factual and free from bias one way or another.
I started with launching Google, clicking “AI Mode”, and entering this query: “Explore Conflict of Interest status for Councillors that are on the Board of the PECAHC in Prince Edward County, Ontario”
You can do this for yourself and read the results, but the “Summary of Status” says “Legally, councillors on the PECAHC board are not in a statutory conflict of interest under current Ontario law simply by serving on the board, because their participation lacks personal financial interest. Politically and structurally, however, the dual-role continues to face severe public challenges regarding perceived conflict of interest, leading to narrow votes on whether to completely dissolve the corporation and bring housing back under direct council control.”
You can ask more queries if you like, but Google AI says there is no publicly available evidence that any of the Councillors, the Mayor, or the public members of the Board stand to profit in any way from proceeding with the Disraeli Street project.
Now, that being said, you could certainly ask this follow-up query of Google AI: “Provide a detailed financial analysis of the Disraeli Street project, and defend your analysis with hard evidence.”
Then you could also ask this follow-up query: “Provide a detailed analysis of the financial position of the County as a whole based on the publicly available Audited Financial Statements for the year ended Dec 31, 2024.”
(The reason you would focus on the 2024 statements, is because the 2025 statements are not expected to be released until August or September of this year.)
Elsewhere in the coverage and comments on this topic, someone asked “who will lead the charge” to shut this down. The answer is: Everyone, and no one.
If you are a taxpayer in the County, I encourage you to experiment like I did, so you can see exactly what can be done. Then, you can decide if you should just remain outraged, or do something about it.
For what it’s worth, Google AI’s analysis is that while there is no ACTUAL COI, there is for sure a PERCEIVED COI. But any legal action that asserts a COI will fail, completely.
Do your own research, then make up your own mind. And stick to facts that can be proven with evidence.
The only way to stop this is via a Motion in a Council meeting, that is carried, and not overridden by the “Strong” Mayor.
I would like to suggest that ANYONE against handing out our hard earned dollars to this messy wish list without our express consent, email to the balance of Council, the Mayor and the CAO directly. Contacting the Integrity Commissioner directly would not go amiss either – i say directly as this is pretty darned time sensitive if you want a decent response. Demand your rights as a taxpayer and voter, that these Councillors declare a Conflict of Interest, in every sense of the word, on our behalf, and Stand Down from all meetings of Council in regard to this Corporation. There are at least two representatives on this Committee – let them do the talking and convincing.
And remember all of this, when it comes time to place your vote in October.
To reach the Mayor, the CAO and any and all members of this Council WE ELECTED TO REPRESENT US, please go to the following link. Everyone you wish to engage with may be found here:
https://www.thecounty.ca/contact-us/
The meeting for this additional taxpayer “ask” by the Prince Edward Housing Corporation has not been scheduled yet. When it is, you won’t have much time to have this addressed properly.
From another “post” in W-T…
Forward to: 1:43:45 to view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCppIYKmpO8&t=14458s
Hello Gary, Hopeful, Angel and Chuck.
This is a clear case of Conflict of Interest, and I fully expect, and demand that they declare COI. The Mayor must be pressured to disqualify these five members from voting, it must be a RECORDED VOTE, and these members must be officially precluded from discussing OR APPEARING IN ANY OF THESE COUNCIL DECISIONS with the other members of Council ahead of this Housing Corporation appearing before Council.
I must say, I doubt very, very much that these particular FIVE will willingly follow the COI Rules. It is down to the public to demand this of our Mayor. ASAP!
I checked with the Clerk’s office today, and to the best of the Deputy Clerk, so far this meeting has not be scheduled. It is my understanding that Adam Goheen schedules and decides on content for these meetings. So if you want these Councillors to declare COI, as they rightfully should, then get in touch with the CAO, the Mayor and all of Council, asap. They can sway votes beforehand, if they are not stopped from doing so.
They created a Housing Corporation to be at arms length from Council. However by placing five (5) Councilors on the Housing Board they did just the opposite and a Conflict of Interest is now in full play! You can’t have a significant taxpayer ask of $500,000 coming before a Lame Duck Council with 5 Councilors already in support. It just isn’t sound or fair governance!
If you listen to the Monday meeting of the Housing Corporation on the County’s Live Stream you will hear the group planning strategy to sell the financial ask to Council. Making the proposition more convoluted under the Board membership is the fact you have Five (5) Councilors supporting the taxpayer ask going in so they need only convince three remaining Councilors/Mayor. They speak of the already $700,000 spent as a drop in the bucket. The Public does not support this boondoggle! Public needs someone to lead the charge to put this entity to bed.
This is financial negligence.
Committing the County to borrowing MILLIONS of dollars over 4.5 DECADES to fund 3 “affordable” rental units and 5 “market rent” rental units — how can this be justified?
This is clearly about the Board members being unwilling to acknowledge their own failure to achieve any actual deliverables in the history of the enterprise, despite spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars already to create vacant lots.
This enterprise must be shuttered ASAP and other ways (involving other people) should be found to help subsidize rents for County people on the waiting list for affordable units.
Thank you, Penny, but while you may have faith in the verbal supports from the federal and provincial government, and in our Council, you are incorrect in having faith in support from the Community. If the affordable housing group can drum up the finances without the taxpayers, then go for it. But, I believe that many in the PEC taxpayer base want out. Many of us never wanted “in”.
So, do it yourselves from here-on-in, or shut it down. Without OUR taxes behind this group.
SPECIAL NOTE TO COUNCIL: NOT ONE THIN DIME FROM OUR TAXES GOES INTO THIS MESS FROM HERE ON IN!
No! No more taxpayer dollars. Wrap things up and dissolve this losing proposition and Corporation. This is nothing more than stubborn pride not wanting to admit failure. Enough!