ERB Registry # 011-1300…

ERB Registry # 011-1300

Although I am not a cottager in Rondeau Park, I am making this submission to state my belief that the proposed provisions regarding lease extensions for cottagers in Rondeau Park is unreasonable, unfair and unnecessary. Also, I believe that an alternate proposal regarding the extension of leases would result in a positive outcome for all parties.

The current cottage community in Rondeau has existed for many generations, following the original intention of the legislation by which the park was created, including the specific and unique intention that cottaging opportunities be encouraged. Why should this use be discouraged now, contrary to the original purpose of the park? What purpose would be served by destroying a long standing community? I believe that negative economic and social consequences would also ensue for the surrounding communities if the Rondeau cottage community ceased to exist.

If there are environmental issues which must be addressed within the park, these issues should be addressed in a manner which would allow the cottage community to remain while ensuring that the surrounding environment and species can continue to thrive. Piece meal removal of existing cottages as current leaseholders die or are forced by financial considerations to vacate the properties will not improve the environment. Rather, this would likely have detrimental affects due to disruption of the environment as these cottages and septic tanks are removed.

Is there any indication that there are in fact endangered species within Rondeau Park for which the danger would be removed by removing the cottages? Or would species which currently co-exist with the cottages by endangered by the removal of the cottage community?

What will be the source of funds to maintain this and other existing parks and to develop new parks, if the monies from the lease holders are not available?

The lease extensions should not be restricted in the manner in the proposal. This will put some individual lease holders at a disadvantage financially and all lease holders will be put at risk emotionally. If leases are restricted to existing lease holders as of the arbitrary date of September 1, 2010, then the continued enjoyment of the cottages will be contingent on the vagaries of health, the age of the recognized lease holder, and the lease holder’s financial circumstances. The current proposal for lease expiry and reversion of properties to a “natural” state appears to be random, rather than an example of good planning. If the leases are to have an end date, which itself is moot, then there should be a common lease expiry date.

Those current lease holders, fortunate to be young enough or in good health, will have their enjoyment of the cottage community diminished as they will be in constant fear of being in their cottages on borrowed time, and of leaving their family or estate with a financial burden. This is not conducive to enjoyment of the cottage experience, or the continuity of the experiences of many generations for whom the park has provided a life time of memories. How many children today can say “I am sitting in this cottage overlooking the lake/beach/woods, just as my father did when he was a child, and his father before him, and his father before him”?

I disagree with the proposed requirement that all septic systems be brought up to current codes. Personal experience with building codes is that systems under renovation must be brought up to current code, but there is no arbitrary requirement to bring existing structures to current standards. The proposed upgrades would add to the financial stress imposed on the cottagers, who would have limited opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the improvements, despite a guaranteed financial outlay. Also, would not unnecessary disruption to the environment be counter-productive to the alleged need to protect environmentally sensitive species?

In my opinion, the financial burden of upgrading the cottage systems (with uncertainty as to whether or not the lease holder can continue to enjoy the cottage experience) coupled with the financial burden of removing the cottage and related structures upon termination of the lease, constitutes double jeopardy for the lease holders, and has the appearance of a financial squeeze or disincentive for cottagers to maintain the lease. If the restoration of a “natural habitat” is part of a “plan” for Rondeau Park, such blatant fiscal pressure should not be required. Unless the presence of cottagers for almost a century can be shown to have had deleterious effects on the environment, flora or fauna, cottagers should have the option of holding their leases in perpetuity, subject only to requirements to maintain the properties to a reasonable standard. Other Provincial Parks have leases which are held in perpetuity. Rondeau Park should retain its history of being a unique park; unique because it maintains the traditions of cottaging set out in the original plan, not because it is unique in being the park for which one of the key original opportunities has been revoked.

[Original Comment ID: 129072]