Comments

I am a non-cottager, but have enjoyed visiting my friends in the park. It's a historical cottage park and should be kept like that and have owners purchase their cottage property also.

[Original Comment ID: 128713]

Cottages definitely belong in Rondeau. They should be and must be allowed to stay in Rondeau...as they have been here for over a century, and cause no harm to the environment.

[Original Comment ID: 128717]

* Rondeau is only provincial park in Ontario that was created specifically for cottaging...cottages have been past down generation to generation for over 100 years. Cottages belong in Rondeau! Please bring respect, fairness and reason to this proposal for the benefit of all.

If ecological integrity is truly the first priority when planning and managing within parks and conservation reserves, as laid out in the new legislation of 2005, then an extension of these leases will not occur.

Dear Mr. Feilders,

I have learned that the cottage leases at Rondeau Provincial Park are currently under review.

* Cottages definitely belong in Rondeau. They should be and must be allowed to stay in Rondeau...as they have been here for over a century, and cause no harm to the environment.

The terms and conditions of the new lease agreement is unfair and unreasonable. I have many memories inside the park, spending time at cottages, enjoying the nature and benfits of the park the exact way it is right now, including admiration of the cottages.

We are definitely in support of the lease extension at Rondeau Park. The current proposed terms and conditions of the lease extension are unreasonable and unfair for the cottagers.

I am against renewing the leases of cottagers at Rondeau Park. As a former long time resident of the area near Rondeau Park and a user of the park as a Bird watcher, I am aware of the sensitivity and value of one of the few remaining habitats for wildlife in that area of Southwestern Ontario.

We go to Point Pelee many times during the year, and this is exactly what is displayed at the visitor centre, that in order to maintain the park as a true natural reserve, it was necessary to eliminate the cottages.

While it was nice to see a new lease being offered to leaseholders of Rondeau, it seems that I would need some clarification before I could happily enter into same. It would appear that I would have to make a substatial financial committment to extend the lease.

* Cottages definitely belong in Rondeau. They should be and must be allowed to stay in Rondeau...as they have been here for over a century, and cause no harm to the environment.

I am a non-cottager. Long term lease extension ia a great idea. Son, daughter-in-law and family enjoy their time at the cottage. The boys just love the natural envirnement.

Lease transfers are allowed except to a spouse on the death of the leaseholder.

With new lease agreements comes changes that are common. Wording gets refined, new restrictions are added, more legal jargon.

Having read the Ministry Proposal regarding the non-extension of leases for cottages in Rondeau Provincial Park, I would like to add my dissenting voice to the cottagers who will be most affected by the proposed changes.

Hello. I am writing to oppose the extension of the Rondeau Cottage leases for another 20 years.

I support a lease extension at Rondeau, however we feel the terms and conditions proposed are unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory. Without the possibilty of passing down the cottage or selling it eventually all cottages will become owned by the Park.

* Cottages definitely belong in Rondeau. They should be and must be allowed to stay in Rondeau...as they have been here for over a century, and cause no harm to the environment.

* Rondeau is only provincial park in Ontario that was created specifically for cottaging...cottages have been past down generation to generation for over 100 years. Cottages belong in Rondeau! Please bring respect, fairness and reason to this proposal for the benefit of all.

We absolutely support a lease extension at Rondeau, however we feel the terms and conditions proposed are unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory.

[Original Comment ID: 128811]