Comment
Wet noodles
As they flail about looking for an argument, the cheerleaders for $300 million of waterworks expansion have landed on the accusation that those worried about drowning under unbearable spending are “antigrowth” and “NIMBY’s” (not-in-my- back-yard). It is nonsense. And easily demonstrated as such. (Lacking real arguments—or history or context— some have resorted to throwing spaghetti against the wall, desperately hoping a floppy noodle sticks.)
Readers who have lived in Prince Edward County for longer than a cup of coffee will know that this newspaper, in particular, has long been a keen and vocal advocate for new homebuilding in this community. Like a terrier with a bone.
Ours is a community graced with a large population of seniors and retirees. Demographically speaking, however, we are at a dead end. Our community needs the renewal that new homebuilding offers. Growth is essential to preserving our communities and economy—schools, healthcare and other services. New homebuilding will also produce the supply needed that could nudge resale prices lower—to rebalance a market that was allowed to float to the stratosphere due to a mix of fear and neglect.
These pages have been making this case for 15 years. The issue before us today is not growth or no growth, but rather, who should pay to make it happen?
Most would agree that we ought not bankrupt the place to do it. We are not interested in mortgaging existing water users to fund developers’ profits. We like the ambition. We encourage investment. But we draw the line at paying for the infrastructure that adds value to developers’ property. We don’t want to subsidize new homebuilding to the tune of $300 million—to be paid back in 100 years or more.
It is not a difficult distinction to grasp.
Subsidizing big developers should never have been on the table. It was wrongheaded from the outset. Our community could never afford it. And never should have been proposed.
Many of us live on a fixed income—our pensions and savings are indexed to the consumer price index. Few of us can expand our wealth at this stage of life. So every year that property taxes rise by more than the rate of inflation (which is always), it consumes a bigger bite of the money we need to live. Every year that the cost of water rises faster than the inflation rate (which is always the case), it makes it a little more challenging for many of us to get by.
It is crushing for those on the edge of managing rent each month.
When presented with the prospect of paying even more—and doing so for the primary benefit of developers—it is natural that folks push back. It doesn’t make them NIMBYs or anti-growth. It makes them prudent and protective of their home and family.
The County has big infrastructure challenges. It has too many decaying assets and too few folks to pay for renewal. Yet year after year, things get a little worse.
Against this backdrop, it is easy to see how municipal officials fell in love with the idea that they could wrangle developers into paying to fix their problems. New homes meant development charges (DC). DC money could be used to fund things. Everyone wins. It was an appealing notion.
But it was breathlessly naïve.
Developers are more cautious. More market-dependent. More agile. And they are ruthlessly careful with spending. Developers are undoubtedly thrilled that Shire Hall is willing to run ahead and build and fund this infrastructure on their behalf.
But when new homebuilding dried up across North America a few years ago, so did the prospect for a rich new DC revenue stream in Prince Edward County. Yet our head of council clings, inexplicably, to the notion that he made a promise to developers to bring water from Wellington to Picton. (Where? When? On whose behalf?)
Shire Hall has already committed $50 million on the backs of water users across the County. It has demonstrated good faith. (Too much, some would say.) Yet the head of council is eager to push the button on $250 million more. He cannot see that the world has changed. He cannot—or will not—see that the bargain made five years ago was folly. “Astonishingly reckless” is how an expert municipal lawyer put it last year.
At this point, Shire Hall and Mayor Ferguson ought to learn some tips from residents living on fixed incomes. It ought to be more prudent in its spending, cautious about big projects and peaceful in the understanding that it can’t fix everything all at once.
Mostly, it should make an argument that will stick to the wall.
The phrase “Growth pays for growth” gets thrown around frequently by various Councillors, Staff and the Mayor. A useful read about this phrase, and the thinking behind it, is at this link –> https://opencouncil.ca/development-charges/
The article says, in part, “DCs received by a municipality must be placed into separate reserve funds for each service and may only be used for the purpose for which they are collected.”
In the audited Financial Statements for the County as at Dec 31, 2023, the Balance of the “Deferred obligatory reserve fund” in the “Development charges” bucket was $8.8 million.
However: It is unlikely that the current balance today has that amount set aside. How can we know? Ask the County, via an Action Request. The current Acting Director of Finance should be able to provide that information.
If that number were to be made public, reasonable questions might be:
1) How much of that money is earmarked to cover Expenses associated with Developments that have been approved? (i.e. for which the funds were collected)
2) What are the current estimated Expenses that remain to be spent, associated with Developments that have been approved?
It is possible that County Staff does not actually know the answers to questions 2) and 3). If that is true, then Council should be asked to instruct Staff to obtain the answers to those questions, and report back, BEFORE approving any further developments, or expenses associated with existing approved developments.
Asking questions like this has nothing to do with any sort of “NIMBYism”, which is simply a term used by various Councillors, Staff, Developers and even other media, to distract, deflect and deny.
Just answer the questions. It’s public money. Or, supposed to be, at least.
Thanks to the Times for the opportunity to ask such questions.