Let’s get rid of a few tidbits of serious misinformation that have surfaced either recently, or just never properly went down the BS drain in the past.
There seems to be a great deal of finger pointing from the discontented people in the rural parts of Chatham-Kent towards Chatham. The recurring notion is that Chatham is somehow at fault for everything from tax increases, recent mere mentions of (however unlikely) fire hall and library closures, to the ward boundary restructuring (which was to appear before council on Monday), to amalgamation itself.
None of that is true.
Let’s start with ward boundaries and a change in the size of council. The latest rendition of that concept was put forward by a North Kent councillor, not a Chatham councillor. The intention was to increase efficiency around the table rather than stifle rural input.
In regard to pre-budget proposals that mentioned options – ones not recommended by anyone on municipal administration and certainly not supported by the vast majority of council – to shutter volunteer fire halls and close libraries or service centres, this all began with a list of possible options put forward by a South Kent councillor.
And for reference, Chatham-based councillors comprise just over 35% of the 17 councillors in this municipality – six of 17 to be exact. That’s not a majority by any stretch.
So, decisions to opt for the Community Hub project for a new concentration of municipal departments were not made by Chatham. In October, five of the 10 councillors who voted to move onto the next stage of the hub were from outside of Chatham. Only four non-Chatham councillors voted against it on the night.
In terms of amalgamation, Chatham did not want any part of it back in 1998 as 20-plus Kent County communities could not come up with their own amalgamation plans, so in stepped the Mike Harris government.
We understand how citizens in communities such as Bothwell rail against any thoughts of closing their library, fire hall or arena. Losing such elements, like the loss of elementary schools in the past, can weaken a community’s fabric.
No, Chatham-Kent is not perfect. But we are stronger together – recognizing and supporting the individualities of the many communities inside the mosaic that is C-K – than we are divided.
I don’t think you’ve properly addressed the reasons rural communities want to leave the Chatham-Kent municipality. The Chatham-Kent council is not listening to the will of the people which is why many (both in Chatham like me, and in rural areas) are angry with municipal council. This opinion piece is dismissive and misses the point.
Every time the word “amalgamation” or the date “1998”comes up, I have to shake my head. No one wanted it, but for over twenty five years, we have all had to cope, as we stumble along. I share the frustration, even some of the anger, that others are experiencing, but every provincial election I ask myself, why do the constituents of Chatham Kent Leamington repeatedly vote Progressive Conservative??
Particularly those that live in rural Kent. I just don’t get it.
Wells and fresh water. Turbine “disturbances”, erosion of roadways along the lake, “de-amalgamation” (there is that word again), downloading of provincial taxes, safety corridors along the 401, is C.K. rural or urban?, explosions in Wheatley, provincial downloading of infrastructure projects, lack of adequate housing, transients, every type of social program becoming municipal, etc. – these are but a few of the things that should turn people away from the Tory vote, but the rural areas continue to vote in the same people that are not doing the job in the first place.
Someone explain to me why the people of Wheatley, Leamington, Blenheim, Ridgetown, Dresden, Thamesville, Bothwell, Wallaceburg, Paincourt, Dover Township, etc. overwhelming vote for the likes of Jones and McNaughton (now Pinsonneault). It strikes me that it is just easier for some to dump everything on the municipal counsel because they are present in our daily lives, rather than place all of these provincial responsibilities squarely on the shoulders of our M.P.P.s where they belong.