Editor: This is in response to Rick Williams, letter to the editor in the Nov. 21 Chatham Voice “Reader wishes to break up C-K.”
Perhaps Chatham-Kent doesn’t work the way we all had hoped. It has been 26 years since amalgamation and the 23 communities that merged still continue to have very legitimate differences.
I have been a member of Chatham-Kent Council for over 14 years, and the division between urban and rural issues has not been resolved.
Unfortunately, to nobody’s benefit, there seems to be two corrosive trains of thought in the municipality, “Chatham gets everything” and “the rural communities are left behind.” In my opinion, neither is correct. The time has come to make this collection of communities regain their identity.
I believe it is time to seriously consider dissolving our amalgamated Chatham-Kent. To be clear, I do not support returning to our previous 23 communities. Maybe consider dividing Chatham-Kent into three communities: City of Chatham and two additional municipalities. It could be considered using the 401 as a divider of a northern and southern boundary for the creation of two new municipalities.
As a C-K councillor, I understand the frustration of the rural population. Decisions made at 315 King Street West in Chatham that affect the lives of people from Wheatley all the way to Bothwell seems illogical.
I believe the people of Blenheim, Wallaceburg, Dresden and all parts in between would be better served if they were able to chart their own course.
I personally believe it is hard, if not impossible, for a councillor to make logical decisions for such a large and very different geographical and demographically diverse area.
Chatham-Kent tried and it has not worked out the way we hoped. We can, and should, make changes. No hard feelings. Kent County, but a union of three supportive municipalities would be a benefit to us all.
Note, these are simply my thoughts and I recognize the need to engage the entire C-K community to seek their guidance and input. From a governance and quality of services standpoint, “we” can do much better.
Michael Bondy
Chatham
