• Protecting Water and Farmland in Simcoe County

Midhurst debate continues – Buxton, Shindruk, Strachan

By
In Agriculture
Jun 17th, 2014
1 Comment
2751 Views

Enough with the character assassination

Letter sent to the Barrie Examiner by Sandy Buxton / Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association

Experience teaches us that some people will resort to innuendo, personal attacks and bluster when they can no longer win an argument using reason and facts.  This truth is evident in Ms. Shindruk’s two letters in the Barrie Examiner, in which she lambastes members of the Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association (MRA).  No MRA Board member has stooped to this level because, frankly, we have reason and facts on our side.  We want to work collegially with other organizations, which requires enough respect to focus squarely on the issues and not on character assassination. It’s not hard, therefore, to see why the MRA has been reluctant to meet with Geranium and the Midhurst Landowners Group (MLG).  Her mud-slinging, groundless accusations and contemptuous tone do not persuade us that the developers she represents are considerate of the rights and opinions of those who have made Midhurst their home.

Indeed, we’re left with the impression that Ms. Shindruk and the MLG are not sincere in their invitations to meet for substantive discussions.  Could it possibly be more about building a case than a genuine interest in resolving differences?  How can we trust a group that continues to intimidate and attack us with vehemence, a snide tone and disrespect when we have done nothing but focus on the issues at hand?  We have not publicly named the developers. That’s not our style.  Sadly, though, it’s become clear to us that they don’t respect the right of citizens to question their elected representatives about the impact such a massive development will have on their village traffic, agricultural economy, water resources and taxes.  Please remember, Ms. Shindruk, that the MLG “crashed” our party – life in Midhurst.  We supported the original provincial plan for substantially smaller, more sustainable growth in Springwater as a whole.  This worthy goal was undone first by Springwater Council and then, three years later, by the County when it mysteriously withdrew its long-held vocal opposition to the mega-development, causing the community to realise that its quality of life, foodlands and water sources were now in serious jeopardy.

Ms. Shindruk describes the MRA as self-serving, implying that we don’t care that others need a place to live. On the contrary, we want a vision of growth for Springwater that respects our agricultural economy and water resources. Surely, she must know that the provincial Growth Plan was enacted to protect farmland as much as anything else.  Yet, despite the fact her development would destroy 1900 acres of prime farmland and threaten a pivotal wetland of international significance, the MLG lobbied the government strenuously to make Midhurst an exception to the Growth Plan. So who is self-serving?

Our quarrel is not with developers or the construction industry, both valuable economic sectors.  Instead, we disagree with the lax rules and amendments which allowed this urban mega-sprawl plan to see daylight in the first place.   We want to see those loopholes closed and planning legislation enforced equitably so that no small community need ever again write a letter like ours – defending their right to ask questions, demanding answers and requiring principled growth plans from their government  – and be called “self-serving” for doing so.

Letter about Midhurst plan was self-serving

Letter to the Barrie Examiner from Cheryl Shindruk /
Geranium Corporation / Midhurst Landowners Group June 10 2014

David Strachan is the immediate past-president of the Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association (MRA), and that fact should have been noted in his recent letter to you. It is important to know the context of his concerns.

He has a vested interest, as a former president and current member of the MRA, an association that is waging a campaign against new development in Midhurst, yet refuses to meet with the Midhurst Landowners Group, the proponents of that development.

Mr. Strachan’s concerns are ill-founded and part of the ongoing campaign of disinformation about the future of Midhurst being waged by the MRA.
They do not want the facts to get in the way of their self-serving story, which is really about preserving what they perceive as their privileges; no one else should be able to move to Midhurst.
Ontario’s population continues to grow, and people continue to need places to live. Yet, in his letter, Mr. Strachan complains about both “compact housing” and single family homes; so where would he have people live if not in one kind of housing or another?

Mr. Strachan asks where people are going to work. Had he participated in the process, he would know that planning for employment has been co-ordinated with planning for new development in Midhurst.

Here are a few facts.
Springwater Township is not a bedroom community for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). More than 75% of Springwater residents work in Springwater, Barrie or elsewhere in Simcoe County. Fewer than 10% commute to jobs in York Region or Toronto.
Midhurst itself is home to some very significant institutional and public sector employers: County of Simcoe Administration Centre, Township of Springwater Administration Centre, Simcoe County Board of Education, Ministry of Natural Resources District Offices,and Simcoe County Museum.

Across the Barrie CMA (Barrie, Springwater and Innisfil), only 18% of residents work in the GTA.

The overwhelming majority work in the Simcoe area.
The 2010 Springwater Economic Development Strategy identified the limited availability of shovel-ready serviced employment land and the loss of young workers as competitive disadvantages. The Midhurst Secondary Plan provides a solution for both of these current weaknesses: services for employment lands at no cost to existing taxpayers; and a range of housing types that will provide housing for young working families.

Construction of the infrastructure and houses planned for Midhurst will generate thousands of direct and indirect jobs in the local construction industry – contractors, electricians, plumbers, dry-wallers, landscapers. It will also generate employment indirectly in businesses that provide materials and services to the construction industry.
In the bigger picture, the County of Simcoe has been comprehensively planning for employment growth by establishing new employment nodes along the Highway 400 corridor in south Simcoe.

These areas will provide job opportunities for current and future residents in all of Simcoe, including Springwater. As the labour market grows in Simcoe, so too will the number of employers looking to locate near it.
Mr. Strachan asks who will cover the costs of services and infrastructure needed as Midhurst develops.

The answer is clearly set out in the Midhurst Secondary Plan, which contains policies to ensure that ‘growth pays for growth’.

To that end, the municipality is undertaking a financial plan to ensure that the costs of development are borne by the new development. Financial agreements are required at various stages of the process. Such agreements include developer cost-sharing agreements, front-end agreements, and/or accelerated payment agreements.

The first of these agreements was executed with the municipality in July 2009.
Moreover, the township’s 2013 Development Charges Background Study states that the developers and new development will pay the costs of roads, sewers and water service, the combined total of which is $168 million (25.8 million for water, $68.1 million for sanitary sewer and $74.1 million for roads), to be ‘100% funded by Midhurst developers.’
In addition to paying for all of the water, sewer and roads required for Midhurst, the proposed subdivisions will pay approximately $95 million in development charges – $61 million to the township, $28.5 million to the county and $5.5 million to the school boards.

These development charge revenues will be available to help fund new fire and EMS stations and equipment, recreation centres, libraries, public works facilities, parks and outdoor sports facilities, and the furnishings, equipment, books, etc. for the new facilities.

As the new homes and neighbourhoods are built, there will be new parks and trails, schools, community facilities and shops for the community to enjoy – for both existing Springwater residents and new Midhurst residents.
It is a troubling fact the Midhurst Ratepayers’ Association is waging this campaign against newcomers and refusing to meet with or discuss any substantive matters with the Midhurst Landowners Group. The latest refusal to meet came on May 13.

That’s an unacceptable position for a supposedly democratic and resident-based organization to take.

We continue to extend an invitation to Mr. Strachan and the MRA to discuss their concerns with us. They continue to refuse.

 Who will pay for Midhurst growth?

Letter to the Barrie Examiner from David Strachan, Midhurst May 25 2015

Midhurst. If you build it they will come – and cover the costs too?

I always thought that people were attracted to areas which offered opportunities to earn a living. These days people seem to be moving to any area that offers a reasonably priced home, regardless of how far it is to work.

Subdivisions are cropping up all over Ontario and these are getting built on our dwindling supply of farmland.

People want to live in a nice home, but in remote areas with no revenue generating industry. Who is to pay for the infrastructure and services to support it?

Let’s remember, that in consuming our farmland, we also lose local jobs and a source of revenue from productive farms and supporting industries.

It’s not so much that people choose to live in remote areas, but rather they are enticed to do so by the marketing departments of big building companies. Faced with the escalating price of land around the Greater Toronto Area, developers have sought out councillors in rural Ontario who are willing to listen to their arguments for creating jobs and new streams of revenue based on development charges and property taxes.

These messages sound attractive – until you dig into the details of what previous administrations have learned about the cost. Along with increased traffic congestion and unsightly compact housing subdivisions, municipalities across Ontario are now struggling to maintain services for both new and old infrastructure, usually by increasing taxes and levels of debt.

Nowhere is this problem more acute than in Simcoe County, which, following the introduction of the Greenbelt Act in 2005, has become an easy target for developers.

The Greenbelt Act was intended to curb urban sprawl around Toronto, but it now seems merely to have provided a barrier over which developers must leap to spread their urban sprawl further afield.

If there is no local industry available to offer employment, we must rely on long-distance commuting to bring revenue to Simcoe.

Strange when you read in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe: ‘Increasing numbers of automobiles are travelling over longer distances resulting in clogged transportation corridors …Traffic congestion and the delay in movement of goods costs Ontario upwards of $5 billion in lost GDP (gross domestic product) each year.

During a recent visit to Simcoe County offices, I had occasion to ask a senior staff member what plans the county has to provide work for the thousands of people slated to take up residence here. I was told that the county already had ambitious plans to attract industry to Simcoe.

Probably the same could be said for attracting doctors too!

Do our planners and politicians really believe that, if only we had more people we would surely attract more jobs and more doctors? And that these people would bring with them enough money to pay for the extra roads, water treatment plants, police and fire services, recreational facilities and other necessities of urban living?

I hope that someone will prove my suspicions to be unfounded. Otherwise our motto might well become, ‘Ontario – nothing left to discover’.

 

One Response to “Midhurst debate continues – Buxton, Shindruk, Strachan”

  1. Ann says:

    Excellent letter Sandy..well written. Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Commenters must post under real names. AWARE Simcoe reserves the right to edit or not publish comments. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *