County of Simcoe’s Attacks on Our Forests

Letter from R.W. Wagner to the Springwater News

Warden Marshall: By now, you will have seen the first news release issued on behalf of the “Friends of Simcoe Forests Inc.”.

The following observations and questions are relevant to this matter.

1) Today I noticed a very impressive 5th wheel trailer (complete with an awning), which was to be accorded routine servicing at a local business. That expensive-appearing trailer bore the following signage:
Simcoe County
Managing Your Waste

Upon enquiring, I was told that this vehicle has nothing to do with managing our waste but, rather, it is used at local fairs and other venues to promote the County’s image of innovation in waste management.

Is that really necessary? Is this an example of your responsible usage of the ratepayers’ money? What was the purchase price of that trailer? What is the cost of its insurance, licensing and annual maintenance? What tangible value does it generate for the expenditure of our money?

2) There is currently repaving of Horseshoe Valley Road taking place, immediately in front of the Freele Tract of forest which the County intends to convert to a garbage depot. There are 3 large pieces of equipment in use, and a total of 10 workers.

Upon approaching a Simcoe County “Transportation and Engineering” vehicle which was in attendance, I was told that this type of repaving is intended to extend the life of roads by up to 5 years.

Is that really necessary? Is this an example of your responsible usage of the ratepayers’ money? I drive that section of road every day, and it is in fine condition. Given that the County’s staff engineers have disclosed at the recent public meetings, their intention to reduce the grade of the hill which is being repaved and create additional lanes to access/depart the garbage depot, all within the next 2 years, what is the point in spending our money to repave a section of road which is to be imminently torn up?

What is the cost of this repaving? And please, don’t attempt to tell me that is part of a larger contract for ongoing maintenance. Any such contract can have its individual components itemized and the costs can be broken out. Are your staff members so accustomed to dealing with public money that they lack the incentive to adjust expenditures as opportunities arise?

3) At the 2nd set of public meetings last September, your Mr. McCullough was questioned by a concerned resident who had just purchased a residence in Craighurst. He had not yet moved into that residence when the short list of 7 sites for the proposed garbage depot was announced. Five of the 7 short-listed sites were county forests, and that gentleman was concerned that his enjoyment of his hobby of off-road ATV’ing would be affected. McCullough assured him that he would be able to continue enjoying his hobby, as the footprint of the garbage depot would not preclude his existing pastime.

McCullough was seemingly so intent on reducing public resistance that he failed to point out that 4 of the 5 forests which were short-listed are, in fact, prohibited to motorized vehicles. This prohibition specifically pertains to the Freele Tract. When McCullough was subsequently challenged on offering that factual misrepresentation, he claimed not to be aware of the restriction. Is this one of your resident “experts” on whom you rely for guidance? Was he not also a proponent of the conversion of Site 41 to a garbage dump? When will the attendees at the September meeting be contacted to be given the true information, so that their legitimate concerns can be dealt with in an honest and open manner?

4) In the annual report submitted by your Forester, Graeme Davis, under the County’s most recent 5-year renewal of its 20-year forestry management plan, there were no forests declared as surplus. Yet, 1 had been clear cut to make way for a public works facility, and 5 more had been on the short list for conversion to the garbage depot. As you are well aware, 1 of those 5 forests has been selected and presumably the other 4 are still up for consideration for the next industrial infrastructure project which arises. Davis has still not responded to my month-old inquiry on this matter, nor my recent 2nd request.

5) When you were offered the specific details of an industrial site on Highway 400, near Bradford, which could present a viable alternative to any of our forests, you turned the matter over to McCullough, who rejected the suggestion on the basis that the property owners had not come forward when the County was seeking such properties a year earlier. That property was not available a year earlier and, rather than picking up the phone and contacting the representative whose name had been offered up, you and your staff simply rejected the suggestion out-of-hand.

Do you stand behind your staff in all of the foregoing matters? Or, do you now find yourself front and centre in trying to politically spin your way out of these embarrassments?

The past evasiveness of which I have accused you has been refined to the point where your last response to me was evasive about being evasive! How trite!

It is with all of the foregoing questions in mind that I ask 1 final question. Over a month ago, I sent 31 individual E-mails to 31 County Councillors, enquiring as to the name and contact particulars of the County’s Integrity Commissioner. I specifically cited the relevant provincial legislation which pertains. Only 1 of 31 Councillors responded, and your Mr. Daly is aware of this. I still don’t have an answer to that question.

When can I expect a response to the each of the foregoing questions?