Examining Friday Harbour resort’s claims under a microscope

By Claire Malcolmson Environmental Defence November 20 2012 

Almost every day I gawk at a new promotional item about the proposed “Friday Harbour” resort on Lake Simcoe, a 242 hectare development that will potentially pollute the lake and in my opinion impact the quality of life for local residents. We believe it’s important to highlight the impacts of the proposed development, and question the claims that make me raise my eyebrows over my morning coffee. 

The development’s stated environmental “benefits” should be treated with scepticism. A member of the project development team recently declared the company’s commitment to making sure “the water quality tomorrow will be better than the water quality today.” A consultant advising the developer on water quality and aquatic habitats explains that their new sewer line can reach 1,700 homes currently on septic systems, and that hooking these homes up to the new pipe up would reduce phosphorus pollution in the lake. But it’s recently been revealed that homeowners and taxpayers will be the ones really on the hook for the hook up. This will cost from $10,000-30,000 per house, plus connections the Town will need to pay for. The high cost of hook-up is part of the town’s history of not requiring homes to hook up to sewer lines just because they’re there. 

Friday Harbour’s new sewer line may have the capacity to take 1,700 additional homes off septic systems, but if no one uses it, phosphorous loads to the lake won’t be lightened significantly. 

The developer claims they consulted broadly and have community support, claiming, in the Star, “the creation of Friday Harbour …  is a direct result of the input of our offices, governments and the public, including our opposition.” Collaboration usually doesn’t involve $108 million in lawsuits against opponents that never make it to trial. Those are called SLAPP suits, and they’re meant to silence public participation. And this case has been Exhibit A in the call for anti-SLAPP suit legislation in Ontario. 

The Ontario Municipal Board approval of Friday Harbour was premised on this being a resort, not sprawling residential development in cottage country. That’s why people are only allowed to live at Friday Harbour 300 days a year – and only 185 nights consecutively – and why it needs to be a secondary residence. 

Yet, when I talked to the Friday Harbour sales people in the First Canadian Place lobby, the staff stressed “full ownership” and brushed aside the 300 day limit by reassuring me that there is no method established for tracking or enforcement of this condition. They say the resort residents committee will be responsible for upholding this condition, but how?