Good morning,…

Good morning,

A long term lease extension is a great idea. A few changes could transform this policy proposal into one that stakeholders could accept.

Issue 1:

1.This policy fails to recognize the inherent worth of the Rondeau community and its economic importance to South Kent.

2.The stated intention of the policy to eliminate cottages at the end of the lease period betrays the original 1894 Rondeau Park Act which states in section 5b that Rondeau park was created to provide cottaging opportunities. This makes Rondeau unique among Ontario parks.

3.Similarly, the policy violates the MNR Multiple Use Policy which is still in force. "Multiple Use Policy is not consistent with a province-wide policy of restricting cottage leases in provincial parks. Instead, planning policy in specific parks should be based on the values, traditions and classification of each park" MNR Statement of Philosophy of Integrated Resource Management, Feb 1985.

4.Why are Rondeau cottagers being treated so differently that Kawartha Highlands Signature Site Park cottagers, who are warmly welcomed with a pledge that they can stay in perpetuity? New condominiums in Kawartha Highlands continue to be sold. Cottagers in Presq'ile and Long Point Provincial Parks were allowed to buy their cottages. This policy proposal amounts to expropriation without compensation for Rondeau cottagers. We would love to have the opportunity to buy our cottages.

5.After 100+ years, cottages are part of the Rondeau environment and a balance and sustainability have been achieved. Cottages serve as structures that harbour endangered species such as the eastern fox snake and the five lined skink. There is no evidence that the cottages are harming the environment, and in the absence of such evidence cottages should be allowed to stay. On the other hand, removal of cottages can devastate harboured species and environmental assessments should be required prior to demolition.

6.The lease fees paid by Rondeau cottagers provide substantial benefit and revenue to the people of Ontario and under this policy proposal such benefits would stop accruing.

7.The provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act emphasizes the importance of cultural heritage values but this policy proposal advocates destruction of cultural heritage properties. Cottages are classified as cultural heritage assets in the official park plan. Concern has been expressed by the Chatham-Kent Heritage Board regarding the needless destruction of the 100+ year old cottage community of Rondeau.

Issue 2:

8.The policy unfairly discriminates against the families of the elderly, the ill and those without spouses who will be unlikely to last until 2038 and will lose their family cottages. The lease extension should apply to all, not just some, with a common expiry date.

9.The lack of opportunity to add family members to the leases affords an unfair advantage to those who have already added family members.

10.Rondeau cottagers are not against paying fair market value for our lease fees but we do not think it is fair that under this policy cottages cannot be bought, sold or bequeathed. This is not fair to pensioners who need to sell their cottages, nor is it fair to deny people who want to become Rondeau cottagers the ability to do so.

11.The blanket requirement to bring all septic systems, even septic systems that work well, up to current code standards intended for new construction is unprecedented and will cost about $20,000 per cottage. Our environmental assessment indicated that our existing systems are meeting MOE requirements.

12.The government acknowledged in 1986 (Minister of Natural Resources Vincent Kerrio) that the old system where cottage leases expired at different times (rather than at the same date for all) was unfair, and a common expiry date was established (currently Dec, 31, 2017). This latest policy proposal is a regressive attempt to revert to the previous system which was abandoned as unfair. A fair policy would have one expiry date for everyone.

13.The last condition regarding "additional measures necessary to protect natural environmental features" is not legal under the class Environmental Assessment for parks as there is no mention of these measures in the approved park management plan. To implement site-specific mitigation measures that are not included in the park plan is wrong and is an example of poor planning.

[Original Comment ID: 128674]