(Jed Tallo/GazetteStaff)
You have now received a letter from our lawyers at Goodmans. This letter challenges the legality of the settlement offer you extended to Picton Terminals and now claim is “legally binding.”
We believe your intention was to mitigate the legal costs of taking Picton Terminals to court and that you therefore sought to settle the dispute. We believe as well that you felt that by settling you would gain more than had the case gone to court.
The unfortunate part of your thinking is that you ignored the people you represent.
The Prince Edward County Conservancy was formed to assist citizens who felt they were not being heard by Shire Hall. Our intention from the start was to work with Council and staff, not against. But backroom deals, a lack of transparency, and a one-sided agreement that favours the Terminals’ massive expansion plan has changed that.
To top it all off, and the ultimate insult to those who oppose the expansion of Picton Terminals, Council supports requesting an MZO of the Ford government. That move skirts environmental review, a noise study, a traffic study, an assessment of infrastructure needs, and, above all, public consultation. Nothing screams lack of transparency like an MZO.
Since the issuance of the Goodmans letter, support for the County Conservancy has grown. We now represent a significant cross-section of County residents. Unsolicited financial donations have been flowing in. We are now expanding our team to add further legal assistance, environmental experts, public policy experts, PR, and media outlets to assist us in defeating this one-sided deal.
Our opposition will be powerful and well funded.
This is unfortunate: the legal costs you had hoped to avoid will escalate. Both residents and the County will be spending money that could be put to better use.
Perhaps you should consider an alternative. Killing this illegal settlement deal now would show leadership, good judgement, and courage.
The Prince Edward County Conservancy
I write with a few thoughts on the idea of a grain elevator at Picton Terminals. (Barley Days, August 21).
First, there is already a functioning P&H grain elevator in Trenton, on the rail line. It was acquired by P&H in 2014 at the same time that they rolled out a bunch of new hopper cars. Trucking to Trenton would be a lot cheaper than trucking to Prescott. Trucking to Trenton would be cheaper than trucking to Picton for half the County. What am I missing?
Second, as I understand it, soybeans are the County’s dominant export crop, as they are a high-value crop at markets abroad. What is the bean output in the County? About 35.9Kt — just over one laker’s worth. As mentioned in your article, each laker carries about 30kt. That’s the equivalent of about 25,000 acres of soybeans.
Third, speaking for myself, but perhaps others as well, I would, all else being equal, support a grain terminal that was built to service County farmers. The cargos are benign, farming is integral to the community and crop terminals are part of County history. I don’t suspect there’d be the backlash like we’ve seen for the container port proposal, a project designed to service the GTA —one that turns the County into a doormat along the way.
Finally, this idea that the Port is a law unto itself, immune to the views of the community around it, is utterly antithetical to democratic principles. Letting this basic tenet slide sets a dangerous precedent. For this reason, the grain terminal proposal, as formulated, must be opposed.
Instead of trying to run it over, Picton Terminals should come talk to the community. They may be surprised at what they hear.
Doug Pollitt, Picton
Congratulations to the Gazette for its researched, in-depth coverage of the controversy surrounding the proposed waterworks Master Plan (The Infrastructure Issue, August 21). The fact-checking juxtaposed nicely with the news coverage of the Wellington Community Association rally, wherein “many speakers noted they were unable or unwilling to read lengthy, complex reports.” Preferring ignorance over preparing for the future is a sad manifestation of the stance of too many County residents, who seem mired in the 1960s (when I first visited PEC). When the taps run dry, will they still be opposing essential infrastructure that will serve the rest of us and generations not yet born? In their zeal for unrealistically low-cost government they only confirm they really don’t care about those residents who lack appropriate housing and employment opportunities. Kudos to the Mayor, Councillors and civic staff looking out for the rest of us.
Donald Walker, Carrying Place
I was born, raised and educated in a big city in the west. It turns out, though, that I’ve spent my adult life in small town Ontario.
One of the features of that life has been having to endure whatever the local weekly happens to be. I’m sure you know to what I refer: long on flyers and local sports and short on anything resembling real journalism.
So it is with great pleasure that I now look forward every new issue of the Gazette.
You are doing a great job.
Grant Reynolds, Prince Edward County
See it in the newspaper
7° Cloudy
