The AI Incursion

Re: Data Centre Disaster (Editorial, July 22). The Picton Gazette rightly highlights the staggering scale of AI data centre investments in Canada, particularly the 22.2 gigawatts of new capacity planned primarily for Alberta. 

This echoes the “herd mentality” of past speculative bubbles, from the fibre-optic overbuild of the 1990s to the 19th-century railway mania. History shows that betting billions on a single technological future often ends in massive, concentrated losses for investors and taxpayers.

However, there is another critical factor that makes this data centre boom particularly risky: the rapid, accelerating shift toward Small Language Models (SLMs). 

While today’s headlines are dominated by massive cloud-based Large Language Models (LLMs), the most meaningful AI trend may be in the opposite direction—moving processing from the cloud to our own devices.

Leading companies like Apple are already embedding powerful AI into phones and laptops for everyday tasks, ensuring data privacy and eliminating cloud fees. Google’s open-source Gemma models, which can run on a laptop, now perform on par with cloud models that were cutting-edge just a year ago. As more of our AI processing moves locally, the explosive demand for giant, centralized data centres could plateau or even decline before these new “Manhattan-sized” facilities are fully operational.

This technological displacement, combined with the clear historical pattern of infrastructure overbuilding, is a compelling reason for government caution. Before we commit to an Alberta-centric AI future powered by fossil fuels and foreign capital, we must ask: are we building a necessary foundation, or simply the next generation of “dark fibre”? The environmental and financial stakes are far too high to rely on tech-company promises alone.

Don Mayne, Picton

In Fairness to Pickleball

I would like to share my perspective on the proposed pickleball courts in Delhi Park.

For the past three years, our local pickleball organization, Prince Edward Pickleball, has worked in partnership with the County to bring this project to fruition. Volunteers have raised funds, worked with County staff, and followed every step of the planning process. The County identified Delhi Park as the appropriate location for six pickleball courts, the design has been completed, and the project has proceeded in accordance with the applicable bylaws and municipal planning process.

The County’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law clearly defines a park as land intended for recreational, leisure, or athletic purposes. Pickleball courts fit squarely within that definition.

I respect that some residents have concerns about turtles, birds, noise, and the natural environment. Those concerns deserve to be heard and addressed through facts, evidence, and mitigation measures where necessary. Delhi Park is not an environmentally protected area. It is a municipal park intended for recreational, leisure, and athletic uses under the County’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

It is also important to keep the scale of this project in perspective. Delhi Park covers approximately 31 acres. The proposed six pickleball courts and surrounding area would occupy about 1,550 square metres—only about 1.2 percent of the park’s total area. Nearly 99 percent of the park would remain exactly as it is today, with open green space, mature trees, walking trails, and natural areas for everyone to enjoy.

What concerns me is the inconsistency. A community vegetable garden was approved in the same area, complete with fencing that altered the landscape and restricted wildlife access. That project proceeded with relatively little public opposition. If one recreational use is considered appropriate, why is another being treated differently?

We have all seen developments proposed in locations where they did not comply with planning bylaws or threatened environmentally protected lands. Those are the situations where public opposition is both appropriate and necessary. In this case, however, the proposal complies with the County’s planning framework and is located in an area specifically intended for recreation.

Planning decisions should be based on established bylaws, evidence, and the broader public interest—not simply on whether some people personally like or dislike a particular recreational activity. Many residents support this project and have invested significant time, volunteer effort, and fundraising to make it possible.

This project is about more than pickleball courts. It is about respecting the planning process, applying the County’s bylaws consistently, and recognizing the value of recreational opportunities that promote active, healthy living and bring people of all ages together.

I hope the County will continue to apply its own bylaws fairly and consistently by allowing this project to proceed as planned. After three years of collaboration, fundraising, and careful planning, the community deserves to see this long-awaited recreational amenity become a reality.

Luz Elena Espinosa, Picton