I’ve been writing newspaper columns in C-K for years. Here is a small, but relevant sampling…

July 3, 2023 Councillors beholden to public Chatham This Week
Way back in 2014 during my one and only attempt at running for municipal council, I was surprised to discover that people would offer me money, unsolicited, to be used for campaign expenses.
To be fair, there weren’t that many people and I don’t think any contribution exceeded $200, but it was an eye-opener for yours truly, immediately followed by the question of, do these people think I owe them anything if I’m elected? 
Because of who they were I figured they didn’t and were just being kind to a political newbie.
Thankfully, I wasn’t elected (turns out being a politician really is NOT in my DNA) (edited to add: and yet here we are!) and I was able to continue this column, among other things, which would have been off the table if I had been.
However, I was reminded of that one element of municipal campaigning the other day as I read a somewhat cynical social media comment from a former councillor in regard to the proposed Imagine Chatham-Kent (ICK) project for downtown Chatham.
By the time you read this, council will already have had an in-camera meeting on the subject, and far be it from me to speculate on the discussion or the outcome of that meeting.
The agenda for the June 26 meeting noted that council would meet behind closed doors in regard to: “Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on by the municipality with regard to the Downtown Chatham Centre Development.”
You might by now be wondering what this has to do with campaign contributions.
Well, the comment from the former councillor suggested that municipal election campaign contributions made during the 2022 municipal election could be interpreted to imply that several candidates are beholden to one of the developers.
This of course caught my attention so I decided to take a little peeky-poo at those contributions, having clearly not paid attention when this information was released a little earlier this year.
Indeed, Rob Myers did make donations to three successful candidates: Conor Allin ($1,000) and Michael Bondy ($1,200) in Ward 6 (Chatham) and to Ryan Doyle ($1,200) in Ward 2 (South Kent), along with one other contribution to an unsuccessful candidate.
Since I was already digging through the online disclosures anyway (you can find them on the municipal website yourself), I decided to see who’d donated to Mayor Darrin Canniff’s campaign, which had been a pretty safe bet this go-round.
Unlike the other donors who were more local, Canniff’s only contributors were seven people from the Toronto area, each of whom donated $1,200 to the cause.
Personally, I can only see one scenario in which I’d make a donation to a political candidate at any level, and that would be if one of my sons ever decided to take a run at it, and at this point, I feel that my money is pretty safe!
But of course, people contribute to political candidates for various reasons, and at the end of the day it’s up to each and every person who accepts a contribution to decide what sway – if any – it holds.
I’d like to think that all of our council members are there to serve the best interests of the people of Chatham-Kent and to look at the longer-term implications of any decision they make.
That’s not easy and I’ve often said that municipal politics is really a difficult job given the proximity council members have to the people they serve.
It’s not a job for the faint of heart and there is no shortage of opinions, advice and criticisms to be had, so we all need to remember that.
And as far as the ICK project goes, there are still a lot of questions swirling around which need to be answered publicly before local residents can be comfortable with any decision that is made.
Stay well my friends.

Jan. 25, 2024 The ICK saga continues Chatham This Week
Well, if all goes to plan, we the taxpayers of Chatham-Kent will soon be the owners of the old Sears building and loading dock in the Downtown Chatham Centre.
Yes, you might not ever have had that on your wish list, but unfortunately, it’s not up to you, or the people who showed up to air their concerns about the move at the Jan. 15 council meeting.
Despite a range of opposition from various sectors of the municipality, council voted 11-5 in favour of buying that portion of the mall. On the bright side, the new Chatham-Kent Community Hub – though a far cry from what was originally
presented as a spectacular Imagine Chatham-Kent (ICK) redevelopment – is tentatively slated to be finished by August of 2026.
If I was a sitting member of council, I’d be a little nervous about that completion date, what with a municipal election in October of 2026, but that’s a discussion for another time!
For now, we as taxpayers will just have to take it on the chin now that council has agreed to spend $3 million on a building that has been valued at $630,000.
However, in a report to council, administration noted that we are saving $11.7 million in construction costs by using the existing Sears building. I must say though, that there’s something to be said for my late mum’s admonition that, “it’s not really a savings if you didn’t need it in the first place!”
But, it should also be noted that council does have an opt-out clause in place so that: “Should the Municipality decide not to proceed with the redevelopment of the purchased property, the Municipality can trigger the re-purchase of the property by 100 King Street CK Holdings Inc. at the same purchase price between a time period of 18 to 24 months from the purchase of the property…”
But, and this is a big but, the developers who sold it are not under any obligation to buy it back. They “… will have an option to repurchase the property at the same purchase price plus the Municipality’s direct costs for improvements to the property since it had been purchased…” but they don’t have to.
If the municipality decides not to move ahead with the project, and the developers don’t want it back, they also retain first right of refusal on the property if suddenly a third-party appears on the scene with an offer to buy. Given the mall’s track record, that seems highly unlikely and in a worst-case scenario, we the taxpayers will own an empty former Sears building.
But, assuming everything does move forward and in August of 2026, we have a bright, shiny and new-to-us Community Hub, it will be home to the Civic Centre, Chatham Public Library and the Chatham-Kent Museum; a move that will have left two municipally-owned buildings empty and for sale, and one (the Cultural Centre) with a big hole in it.
But, ever the starry-eyed optimists, administration is anticipating that the Civic Centre and library will be sold and generate $9.4 million towards the estimated $53 million Sears renovation.
This figure is in comparison to the estimated $37 million it would have cost to renovate the existing Civic Centre building and doing nothing with the library and museum. And, considering that we’re planning to abandon the Civic Centre because it’s too costly to renovate, it does make you wonder who might want to buy it.
As a person who moved to Chatham back in the late ‘70s when the entire downtown was being torn down to make way for the mall, this whole situation does seem a bit ironic, not that I’m suggesting that the Civic Centre and/or the current library building will be demolished, but who knows?
There remain a lot of unanswered questions, as well as some very disappointed people who had hoped to dissuade council from making this decision.
Time will tell the tale and let’s hope for all our sakes, it has a happy ending.
Stay well my friends.

Aug 8, 2024 No, really, just no… Chatham This Week
Way back in 2007, the Chatham Capitol Theatre restoration project was ongoing.
At that time, it was estimated the initiative, which would transform a 1930s cinema into a vibrant 1,200-seat theatre was estimated to cost around $14 million.
As we all know, the final cost far exceeded that amount and while I don’t know the exact figure, it was over $20 million.
And that was well before the upheavals we have seen as a result of a global pandemic and the resulting impacts on supply chains and prices.
Which brings me to the point of today’s discussion, and that is why, I think it’s a huge mistake for the municipality (read, we the taxpayers) to even be contemplating the proposed Chatham-Kent Community Hub.
If we have learned nothing from our Covid experience, it’s that many people transitioned to doing a lot of their business online. 
As a direct result, many corporations and government entities have abandoned or downsized their bricks and mortar operations.
But, for whatever reason, Chatham-Kent’s local government is moving in the opposite direction, pushing for the community hub that would bring the library, museum and civic centre into the space formerly occupied by Sears in the former Downtown Chatham Centre.
Perusing an old newspaper article from back in 2007, I read:
“Poor soil conditions, partly as a result of being located about 200 metres from the Thames River, created some challenges. “Helical piles were required since the soil wasn’t solid below nine feet, (architect Peter) Cook says.”
While that may or may not be an issue with the hub, the fact remains that any such project brings with it the prospect of the unexpected, and one thing we do know is that before the Sears building was there, there were other buildings on the site which were ripped down to make way for it.
While the cynics in CK already believe this project is a done deal, and certainly the fact that the municipality has spent a bucket load of money on drawings before it’s even been approved by council could lead one to that assumption.
But, I cling to the hope that calmer heads will prevail and council members will realize that this is simply not a project our community can afford.
Common sense alone tells us that given the fact that Chatham-Kent is geographically huge, but population small, it’s not viable. There are only so many taxpayers to go around, and only so many tax dollars to be spent.
Last fall, council approved a 5.53 per cent tax hike for this year, which is a significant increase some in our community will struggle with.
And now a majority of council members are actively promoting a project that would, by its most recent estimate, cost us $53 million to replace three buildings that we already own. Most shocking and disturbing in all of this is that we’re told we need to do this as it would cost $37 million to upgrade the Civic Centre alone.
The question of course, begs to be asked: where was council/administration when these required repairs/maintenance/accessibility requirements were not being addressed? And the obvious follow-up: where will they be when future repairs/maintenance/accessibility requirements are required if the community hub does move forward?
According to Architecttura, the company that has put together the designs for the proposed hub, the costs of design and initial construction of a building typically represent just 30 per cent of its full costs.
The company’s website tells us that, “normal maintenance and upkeep of your building and its systems will, over time, typically cost more than twice (the) original investment – roughly 70 per cent of the structure’s lifetime cost.”
Certainly something to bear in mind, as council considers this project.
As the world, and our little corner of it, move forward into an uncertain future, we also need to remember that we will have increasing demands on our tax base.
An aging population, job losses and rising costs will all take their toll on the municipality’s ability to generate tax dollars.
At the same time, we need look no further than Toronto to see the devastating impact climate change can have.
That city was virtually brought to its knees recently when four inches of rain fell.
Here in CK, just the slight warming we have witnessed thus far puts us at risk not only for a similar rainfall event, but also significant impacts from freezing rain which can topple trees and hydro lines, not to mention the obvious hazards on area roads.
And, like or not, our ‘community of communities’ means we have ongoing service and infrastructure demands from Wheatley to Wallaceburg, and Bothwell to Erieau and all points in between.
Does an unnecessary project in Chatham really matter to our neighbours elsewhere?
Let’s face it, is this something residents of Chatham even want?
As many families in our community struggle to put food on the table and are worried about a precarious financial future, this proposal seems almost a slap in the face.
The fact that so many questions remain unanswered with this project remains a frustration. We still don’t know what will happen with the fire station currently housed at the Civic Centre, and with the museum potentially removed from it, what happens to our pre-existing cultural hub which is also home to the Thames Art Gallery and Kiwanis Theatre?
Will there be free parking? Will there be a need for additional staffing and/or operational costs with both the museum and library set to expand significantly?
What will the capital costs beyond the building itself be? In the world of municipal projects and budgets, there are projects that are considered ‘need to do,’ those that are considered ‘nice to do,’ and I’m now inventing another category called ‘irresponsible to do.’
Stay well my friends.

Aug. 29, 2024 Is CK property rich and housing poor? Chatham This Week
If there’s one thing that everyone in Chatham-Kent might be able to agree on, it’s that we have a real need for affordable housing, as well as supportive housing.
We have ballooning encampments of homeless residents; the most visible currently across the road from the Harvey’s restaurant in Chatham.
In an effort to help alleviate the situation, council has approved an initiative that will see a 50-cabin tiny home emergency shelter complex installed on a municipally-owned property at the intersection of Park and Hyslop streets in Chatham.
However, the current emergency shelter at the former Victoria Park School is expected to close its doors next May and it seems to be operating at capacity, so we certainly need more options.
We have a long way to go in CK before our many and varied housing needs will be met and like so many complex situations, there are no easy answers.
At its Aug. 12 meeting, council approved the purchase of the former 2.43-acre St. Agnes Catholic School property by a vote of 10-7 for $1.05 million, which led to much discussion both inside and outside of council chambers.
For background, in May of 2021, the St. Clair Catholic District School Board listed the surplus property on the open market, having had no interest from any of the public sector agencies it was required to offer it to, including this municipality.
At the time, Indwell, a Hamilton-based Christian charity that works with the homeless, were already looking to initiate a project in Chatham-Kent.
Indwell’s goal at the time was to create 150 units across CK within the next five years, and in June, the school board announced it had sold St. Agnes to Indwell for $635,000.
At that time, Graham Cubitt, director of projects and development for Indwell  told the Chatham Daily News that: “The building, by all accounts, is a sound building. We believe it holds ready potential for conversion to housing without significant demolition.”
The plan was to convert the building so it could accommodate 30 to 35 apartments, with the potential for a second phase, thanks to the size of the property.
Then in January of 2023, Indwell approached CK council looking for a commitment of almost $9.7 million for the proposed project in an effort to leverage upper tier funding of approximately $18 million.
By then the project had evolved and was now looking at creating 95 affordable units of various types, as well as providing supports for residents.
Under the pressure of a looming federal funding application, council approved the request in March, despite some trepidation.
Coun. Amy Finn acknowledged the need for supportive housing, but said, “A lot of people out there find it hard to swallow a $9.7 million (cost) when times are tough…”
The federal government ultimately turned down Indwell’s $14 million funding application, leaving the project in limbo.
In April of this year, S. Derochie & Associates Inc. conducted a detailed financial appraisal of the property and found there were no environmental concerns on-site.
The report noted that the school had been built in 1959, with additions in 1962 and 2000, and estimated the value of the land itself at approximately $970,000. With the existing building, it gave the entire property a market value of $1.05 million.
The report also stated the building should have “… some ‘economic life’ remaining but, due to its typical design and layout as a school, it remains the Author’s opinion that a significant amount of renovation/conversion work would be required to ‘re-purpose’ the structure as a medium density residential facility.”
Interestingly, the school board had also paid for an assessment of the property by Ellens & Associates Inc., in December of 2023.
That assessment came up with a final estimated value of $1.03 million, and noted that: “The remaining economic life for the subject property is estimated at approximately 30 years.”
In addition to purchasing the St. Agnes property, council also agreed to demolish the original school building structure, with the exception of a new gymnasium, at an estimated cost of $200,000.
The move could conceivably put Chatham-Kent in position to access future upper tier funding for supportive housing projects, but the purchase does give one pause.
Among the comparators in the Ellens & Associates report was the sale of the 4.34-acre former Victoria Park School property, which sold in March of 2022 for $1 million.
That school was built in 1953 and has functioned since 2022 as an emergency shelter after council agreed to spend $100,000 to make the necessary renovations to meet the required building and fire codes.
Now that the municipality owns the former St. Agnes school, is there no way it could be similarly adapted to accommodate our ever-growing homeless population? Instead of spending $200,000 to tear it down, could we not use that money to shore it up?
Not to mention a couple of other municipal buildings that could be made redundant if council decides to move forward with its proposed relocation of the civic centre and Chatham library.
Could those buildings not be adapted to affordable/supportive housing?
Every time I drive by the downtown encampment I can’t help but wonder how these people will cope once the colder weather hits. 
And, like an iceberg, the homeless people we see are just the tip of a significant housing crisis in our community. Presumably the transitional housing shelter is working at capacity, there is another encampment, if not two, nearby and there are other individuals quietly camped out at various spots in CK, not to mention those who are couch-surfing, those who are under-housed and those who are living out of their vehicles.
We also have people who are on the brink of becoming part of that demographic as they cannot afford their rents/mortgages.
Without some creative thinking and perhaps some lowered expectations, we’re at risk of being ‘building rich’ but ‘housing poor,’ in our community.
There will always be a tiny contingent of people who choose homelessness, but the vast majority just want a safe and comfortable roof over their heads.
Stay well my friends.

Sept. 26, 2024 Can we blame Covid for housing project stalling? Chatham TW
I was surprised and disheartened recently to read that Chatham-Kent has pulled the plug on an affordable housing project that would have added 27 affordable housing units into the community.
The partially-completed modular housing complex for seniors is located on McNaughton Avenue, close to another municipally-owned housing complex which was hit by a fire last month, displacing almost 100 people.
The newest housing setback adds to the affordable housing woes that already exist in our community, and likely should come as no surprise as the project was initially intended to be occupant-ready by early 2023.
However, the Toronto-based company running the project, BECC Modular System Construction Inc., has now been terminated, and a news release issued by the municipality states: “BECC has not met contractual obligations, and as a result, Chatham-Kent has ultimately decided to end BECC’s right to continue the contract.”
The release further states that construction will resume once a request for proposals (RFP) process brings another company on board.
Until then, no project completion date can be established, nor will council know whether there will be any cost increase on what was originally an almost $10 million project back in the fall of 2021.
Whether or not the municipality will be able to seek any financial compensation from BECC has yet to be determined, but municipal spokesperson Eric Labadie told The Chatham Daily News that the municipality is currently in legal proceedings with the company, which was called BECC Construction Inc. at the time of its RFP submission.
More on that later!
Council originally accepted a recommendation from its director of housing services to move forward with the proposal from BECC in December of 2021.
The recommendation noted the cost of the project was “not to exceed $9,983,902 ($8,835,312 net of HST rebate to Chatham-Kent…”
That amount included almost $5 million through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Rapid Housing Initiative funding, with the remainder coming from the municipality.
In addition to BECC, two other companies also submitted bids on the project. They were NRB Modular Solutions of Mississauga, and Calgary-based Nomodic.
With a total score of 90.77 BECC received the highest score of the three companies, and it offered 27 standard one-bedroom units at 53.52 square metres.
BECC’s project also included seven suites designed for assisted living. The report also states the company’s cost projection indicated it would come in at $7.9 million plus HST, although it was also proposing an additional $599,366 to “best meet the needs of this affordable building, which administration believes can be successfully negotiated with the proponent.” 
There was also a five per cent contingency amount of $412,128 which the report states would be used “only if needed for any unforeseen expenditures which would be funded from Housing Services Operations Reserve.”
Of course the entire situation left me curious about BECC and a look at their website which explains that BECC Modular Systems has evolved from BECC Construction Ltd., and has an 18-year history.
Then, I came across an article on a construction industry site which explained that BECC had made a huge pivot from “traditional onsite construction to fully integrated design-build modular manufacturer and general contractor,” in 2021.
The move, the article states, came as a response to COVID-19 challenges placed on the construction industry.
BECC sales director Peter Schoettle, who was quoted in the article said the company’s goal was to look for small scale projects to help the company gain the experience it needed to pursue larger contracts.
Interesting.
I suppose a 27-unit facility would be a good place to start, and it doesn’t take a lot of speculation to better understand how we got where we are with this project.
Apart from its relative inexperience in the modular industry, we all know how dramatically costs have escalated over the past few years, particularly during the height of Covid, so we probably shouldn’t be surprised that we are where we are.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this much-needed development, and hopefully it isn’t too long before it’s completed and can help alleviate some of the pressure on the affordable housing market.
Stay well my friends.

Oct. 31, 2024 One taxpayer, one pocket Chatham This Week
As if everything else that we as residents of Chatham-Kent are dealing with, we recently received a fiscal bomb shell with news that we’ll be dealing with significant increases in our water and waste water bills over the next decade.
During their October 17 meeting, CK’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) heard that capital costs there are expected to hit almost $1.2 billion, which will mean hefty rate hikes for those of us attached to the system.
An estimate from Watson and Associates projects the average cost of a water bill will rise to $1,157 from its current $605 per year, while wastewater costs are estimated to jump from $630 annually to $1,199.
Even spread out over 10 years, that’s a bitter pill to swallow, and odds are those projections are low as we’ve all borne witness to skyrocketing costs for a good few years now and I’ve no doubt the next decade will not be any kinder.
Apparently the PUC is now forced to follow through with overdue projects, according to municipal treasurer and chief financial officer Gord Quinton, some of which have escalated from $10 million to $40 million.
Sadly, this is not a unique situation in CK where projects that could have and should have been undertaken earlier were not and now ratepayers will be forced to pay the bill for previous councils and commissions that didn’t have the political will or fortitude to do them in a timely manner.
Coun. Lauren Anderson suggested some of the work should have and could have been addressed earlier and Quinton didn’t disagree.
But, at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter what should have and could have happened, because it didn’t, and now it’s time to pay the piper.
We are fortunate to have ready access to clean water which is a luxury millions of people around the world do not. However, it doesn’t come cheap and the consequences of not addressing this vital infrastructure can be deadly.
Way back in 2000, the tiny community of Walkerton learned that when almost half of its 5,000 residents were sickened, and seven died in Canada’s worst-ever outbreak of E. coli. 
This tragedy occurred, not only because of failure’s in Walkerton’s water supply, but by the actions of its PUC to immediately notify the public of a finding of contamination.
But of course, the memory fades, and many people are not old enough to remember the Walkerton tragedy and we continue to take our precious clean water for granted.
We live in a geographically large community and time and again our municipal governments have failed us by choosing to spend money on ‘nice to do’ projects instead of the ‘have to do’s’ that come with such a significant amount of infrastructure.
At around the same time as the PUC bombshell was going off in CK, Mayor Darrin Canniff was explaining how the proposed community hub project would not cost any more money than has already been built into the 2024-27 multi-year budget.
While I’m personally skeptical about that, it doesn’t even matter, because even if the project moves forward and costs more than anticipated, we will have to pay it.
And when the costs for the upgrades and repairs required by the PUC come in, we will have to pay it.
And while our water and waste water costs are not taxes, they are still necessary items that all CK residents have to pay for, and the PUC is run by the municipality.
Canniff successfully introduced a motion at the PUC meeting, which, if approved by council will see administration recommending a consulting firm to review its governance system and recommend best practices.
The mayor pointed out among the seven members of council on the PUC, none of them have expertise on water or wastewater.
That may well be the case, but councillors are not elected because they are experts on anything in particular. Their job is to listen to what they are being told by those who are and to make sound and reasonable suggestions on behalf of the residents of Chatham-Kent.
According to the PUC’s terms of reference, the PUC is affiliated with the municipality’s water and wastewater division, and the general manager, senior level advisor, facilities & systems manager should be at all meetings.
And, at the September meeting, there were more than a dozen staff members in attendance, so I’m not sure how much councillors’ lack of expertise is coming into play here.
If this is the first time that the PUC has been made aware of issues with the water system then we can’t really blame their lack of expertise. However, it’s far more likely that concerns have been raised over the years and have simply not been addressed.
Nobody wants to be responsible for delivering bad news, but we’re certainly learning that there’s bad news and if we wait long enough, there’s only worse news.
All of our municipal councillors need to remember that we are a relatively small community funding a massive infrastructure system and when it comes to water, it could be a matter of life and death.
The costs of upgrading our water system may not affect our taxes but it will certainly impact our ability to pay them, so it is more important than ever that council make responsible decisions on all our behalf.
Stay well my friends.

Jan. 23, 2025 Do we really need a DCAO? Chatham This Week
Is it any wonder that the people of Chatham-Kent are becoming more and more disillusioned with the leadership of the municipality?
The recent announcement that we will be creating a new position – Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (DCAO) – landed like a lead balloon, and no wonder!
We’ve been hearing for some time now about various financial challenges CK is facing, and in the midst of that, CAO Michael Duben feels the need to invest more money into a role that is being created, at least from the information I’ve seen, to create CK’s next CAO.
Now, succession planning is a valid undertaking, but creating a new position and the expense that incurs isn’t exactly something the average person can get behind.
Duben, who only joined CK in 2022, had a salary of $319,278 along with $15,832 in benefits in 2023.
Don Shropshire, who served as our CAO for a decade, began in the role with a salary of $177,611 plus $8,580 in benefits in 2012. But, by 2022 that salary had grown to $257,950 with benefits of $10,602, although Shropshire left in the first half of the year, so I’m not sure how that pans out.
No matter how you slice it though, this is a role that has seen increased compensation on a scale far higher than most of us in CK have seen in recent years, and since it is we the taxpayers who are footing the bill, it’s only right that we take an interest.
The position of DCAO is currently posted and open until January 31, and comes with an annual salary range of $196,476 to $240,957, and according to the posting, “…participation in the OMERS pension plan (mandatory), vacation entitlement and a comprehensive benefit package that includes life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment, short- and long-term disability, extended health and dental benefits following the successful completion of a 3-month waiting period.”
Now, that’s a pretty sweet package to be sure, but it should also be noted that this type of a role requires a certain level of education and a skills set that many people do not possess, as well as an ability to play well with others and navigate the contentious political waters of municipal government, so given all that, the salary isn’t really out of line.
However, the need for this role is a larger concern.
It’s not a role that has existed in the past, and if succession is its only raison d’être, will it disappear once the DCAO becomes the CAO?
One of the issues at play here is that council doesn’t have any say over hiring, other than that of the CAO, which if the DCAO automatically becomes CAO, then even that oversight has been eliminated.
Several councillors have weighed in on social media about the situation, including Coun. Michael Bondy who introduced a motion that would have seen council involved in any non-union hires with a salary of over $50,000 annually. That motion failed 13-3.
Coun. Rhonda Jubenville said that after a personal discussion with Duben she felt, “it isn’t quite as bad as it appears, but I will let others be the judge of that.” She also asked Duben to explain the position at the January 13 council meeting so all of council and the public could be better informed.
Coun. Allyson Storey has filed a notice of motion requesting more information which will be discussed at the Jan. 27 council meeting. 
We’ve learned that the new role will not add any financial burden to the municipality as the salary will come from other roles that have disappeared through attrition/retirement.
That’s all well and good, but could we ever consider actually SAVING money, instead of finding somewhere else to spend it?
And what if our future DCAO decides they don’t want to be our next CAO and moves on to another position somewhere else, where are we then?
Duben has said he’s planning to retire in about four years, which seems like an awfully long time to start training the next person. At the highest end of the salary range, that’s almost a million dollars we will have spent in hopes that we have a fully evolved and functioning CAO on our hands at the end of all this.
And of course, the question begs to be asked – how have we managed to navigate these waters in the past?
We have seen CAO’s come and go, but we’ve never had need of a long-term process to facilitate that before.
But of course, four years is a long time and if there’s one thing we know for certain, it’s that we can’t know anything for certain! 
Stay well my friends.

April 10, 2025 CK’s great divide Chatham This Week
You could be excused for thinking that the greatest divide we have to deal with in Chatham-Kent is that which exists between urban and rural residents.
Or, perhaps you think it’s politics, especially now as we’re embroiled in the federal election that will shape Canada for years to come.
But no.
If you ask me, the biggest divide we have in CK is the gulf between the have’s and have-not’s in our community.
I recently read a social media comment defending CK councillor’s annual honorarium of $43,451. Needless to say, most people were not in agreement.
Now, here’s where it needs to be remembered that on the books, these positions are part-time ones, so essentially, we’re looking at $43,451 as a part-time salary.
Mayor Darrin Canniff, whose role is full-time receives $137,475.
But of course, none of these can hold a candle to the salary CK’s CAO Michael Duben makes, which was $319,278 according to the 2023 Sunshine List.
Now, let’s compare that to the general population of CK.
According to Statistics Canada, as presented by the municipality itself, as of 2022, there were 14,015 households in our community earning $49,000 or less annually, and there were many households earning significantly less on that list.
During the same period, there were 19,465 households in CK with an income of $80,000 and over.
Finally, the largest segment of the population lived in a household with an income of $60,000 to $79,000 annually, which was the case for 6,665 households.
There were 5,750 households on the highest end of the spectrum ($150,00+), while there was a slightly higher number of households (6,155) on the opposite end, earning $29,000 or less.
That’s a lot of numbers to digest, and you know I’m not a big fan of numbers, but sometimes they’re important.
I was actually trying to determine the average salary in CK as opposed to household income, but I couldn’t really come up with anything I’d hang my hat on, so we’ll just have to deal with what we have!
And what we do have, boys and girls, is a huge income disparity which fuels much of the angst in our community and is the cause of many of the issues plaguing us, from a housing crisis to food insecurity and everything in between. And let’s not forget about crime.
With the largest segment of households in CK bringing in $60,000 to $79,000 annually, I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are plenty of instances in which those are dual-income households where one or both people are working full-time, which understandably makes a CK councillor’s part-time income of $43,451 look pretty sweet.
And let’s think about the 6,155 households in our community struggling to get by on $29,000 a year or less.
Some of these households no doubt consist of a senior or two who own their own home and are now on a fixed income. With escalating property taxes, not to mention the skyrocketing costs of everything else, hanging on to that home becomes a very real worry.
Is it any wonder that so many people in CK are skeptical about governments at all levels?
Fun fact: In the course of my research for this column, I found out that the average Member of Municipal Parliament (MPP) makes $116,550 and that their salaries have been frozen for almost 16 years.
Municipal council is of course, closest to home, and it doesn’t help when residents who are struggling hear that their councillors are receiving relatively hefty salaries for a part-time gig, especially when they don’t appear to be listening to their constituents’ very real concerns about projects like the proposed community hub.
We know that past councils have not done their due diligence in maintaining our infrastructure and we have no assurances that the current or future councils will be any better, particularly as we’re now having to pay the piper for past mistakes.
To be fair, there are some councillors who do far more than the minimum requirement and work hard for their constituents. 
Being a councillor isn’t a job for the faint of heart, but the most fundamental thing those entrusted with our governance must do is to listen to the people who elected them.
That’s not an easy thing to do, particularly when there is such a financial gulf between many of the people who live in our community.
Priorities, as well as incomes, vary greatly across the 44,030 households (yes, I had hoped to avoid having to use my calculator again, but here we are) in Chatham-Kent, and all members of council need to bear that in mind as they move our community forward, not just with the capital dollars, but the operating funds too.
At this time in our history, we have many needs in our community.
Stay well my friends.

June 5, 2025 And now, back to the hub… Chatham This Week
It’s been a good few weeks now since the May 12 council meeting where the proposed Chatham-Kent Community Hub project was bustled along to its next stage, but having sat through the four-hour presentation and discussion which preceded the vote, I’m left with a few unwritten thoughts, and you know that’s a hard thing for me to deal with!
A lot of things were said at the meeting, both in favour of and opposed to, moving the Civic Centre, library and museum into the former Sears building and some good points were made all around.
There were some real points being made in favour of the hub, and they all sounded pretty good at the time.
It was only later, having stayed up late to crank out the ol’ ‘stay classy’ column that I really began to mull over what had been said.
One thing that irked me at the time was the idea that those who are opposed to the hub are afflicted with ‘fear of change.’
There were also implications that older people who are mired in the past should think about our children and grandchildren who would benefit from these improved and expanded facilities, most notably of course the library and museum.
Here’s the thing though.
I believe, from everything I’ve read and heard, that those who are opposed to the project are concerned primarily about the potential costs of the move, and for good reason when we think about other big ticket projects we’ve seen in CK, and if we’re being honest, Chatham specifically.
I have yet to hear anyone say or imply they just don’t want a shiny new library or museum.
The day after that meeting, I drove by and took a closer look at our existing civic centre.
Full disclosure here; while I appreciate the style of the building and its legacy, it’s not really my cup of tea architecturally. In fact, even though I never had a chance to see it myself, I suspect I would have loved Harrison Hall, which apparently housed both Chatham and Kent County offices prior to the existing mall being built in that space.
But, having taken a closer look at the exterior of the existing civic centre, it looks to me to be in pretty good shape, so of course, having recently been to England and Guernsey where reused and repurposed buildings are par for the course, I can’t help but wonder why we wouldn’t update and upgrade this existing building perched on the riverfront.
I know the figure of $108 million was being bandied about as the costs to bring up the existing three facilities to the same standards as the proposed hub, but that does seem a little disingenuous as existing buildings are not held to the same standards as new builds or extensive renovations under the Ontario Building Code.
However, accessibility is an important issue in all of our public spaces, and I’m glad we live in an era where the concerns of those who have physical challenges and/or strollers are taken into consideration.
Everyone who lives in or visits CK should be able to fully access our buildings and resources, and certainly with an aging demographic, those needs will only increase over time.
However, I’ve certainly seen people in wheelchairs at council, and in the library. I can’t say I’ve seen a wheelchair user in the museum, but it’s never been overly busy on the rare occasions I’m there.
And, it should be noted, that a member of CK’s accessibility committee, who happens to be a wheelchair user herself, gave a deputation at the May 12 meeting asking that council not move forward with the hub.
We could definitely do more for those who need visual and hearing assistance, but all of that could be accomplished in any of our existing buildings.
And certainly the civic centre and library in particular could do with a facelift and some upgrades, but if we maintained our existing infrastructure, surely we could come up with a phased approach that would see us with a realistic plan in place to modernize our facilities.
It doesn’t need to be an all or nothing situation.
If past councils had done what was necessary at the time, we would have dealt with the much-needed replacement of the HVAC system in the civic centre when it was first needed.
In 2020, the council of the day voted 11-7 against spending $18.1 million to not only replace the HVAC system, but also to move council chambers to the first floor to address accessibility concerns. A few years earlier, council had also given the thumbs down to a $13 million proposal to remedy the situation.
So, after two short-sighted decisions made over concerns about costs by previous councils, suddenly there’s a new ‘damn the torpedoes’ attitude on this council, which of course is all well and good in this moment (of tremendous financial uncertainty it must be said), but what about future councils?
Will they ensure that ongoing maintenance and staffing is covered in future budgets, or will our tax-paying children and grandchildren be on the hook for yet another such project?
Stay well my friends.

March 21, 2025 Not in our backyard please… Chatham This Week
The owners of York1 must be feeling pretty confident that their bid to reopen and expand the former Dresden landfill site will be approved by the province.
On its website, the Mississauga-based company has already announced the Dresden location under the category of ‘Coming Soon…’ along with two other recycling facilities; one in Barrie and the other in Mississauga.
Those three would join nine other such facilities and transfer stations the company owns, primarily in the Toronto area.
But, the developers are facing a strong backlash in Chatham-Kent and rightfully so.
There are concerns and questions aplenty surrounding the Dresden site and not much in the way of answers.
Under ‘more information’ on the Dresden project, York1 notes that, “Ontario’s construction industry generates 14.2 million tonnes of waste annually, but only 13% of this waste is diverted from landfills.”
The company also claims that at its current rate of landfill use, the province could run out of landfill space by 2034; a situation that could be greatly rectified if construction material waste could be diverted.
To that end, York1 is proposing a Regenerative Recycling Facility (RRF) for the Dresden site, which it purchased in 2022.
Dresden’s RRF – the only such facility in York1’s holdings it appears –  would, “focus on recovering valuable resources for recycling and reuse,” thus aiding the environment, conservation, reducing the strain on landfills and promoting “a more circular and resource-efficient economy.”
News of the proposed facility has shaken Dresden-area residents, as well as CK Mayor Darrin Canniff who penned a letter to the province’s Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks on behalf of council and local residents.
In his letter, Canniff accuses the owners of York1 of piggybacking on historic ministry approvals of the landfill which was originally operated by the former Town of Dresden before being sold just prior to amalgamation.
We all know that environmental standards today are drastically more stringent than they were decades ago when the site’s original approvals were given, so for the company to assume it can simply pick up where the last operator left off is completely wrong.
Canniff notes council has unanimously opposed the proposal in principle and says there are a multitude of concerns arising from it.
And indeed there are, not the least of which is the fact that very little of this construction waste is going to be generated from within Chatham-Kent which means trucks will be rolling in from around Ontario, greatly offsetting any environmental gains that will be made as a result of recycling building materials so far from where they originate.
The proposal calls for an average of 6,000 tonnes of waste a day to arrive at the site; 1,000 tonnes of which would be landfilled into a 20-acre landfill that would be built on the existing 86-area site.
Once again, it looks like small-town Ontario is being asked to sacrifice for the greater good that is Toronto and area, because let’s face it, a huge amount of that construction material is being generated there.
And of course, we’re not just talking about trucking construction materials in, we’re also talking about trucking the recycled materials out, as presumably, they’re not going to leave all this valuable stuff just sitting around.
Local conservationists are also very concerned about the site’s proximity to the Sydenham River, which is home to at least 33 species at risk, although the company has said it will conduct studies to ensure the environment is safeguarded.
Now, the concept of recycling and reusing content that would otherwise end up in landfill is a tremendous idea and it’s one that our friends in Europe do exceedingly well.
However, it makes far more sense to set up shop for this sort of operation closer to where the material is not only being generated, but also where the recycled material could be used.
Our infrastructure has not been designed for this massive influx of waste, recyclable or not, and our residents do not deserve to have their quality of life impacted to this extent.
Kudos to council and our mayor for standing up for our community in this well-chosen battle.
Stay well my friends!

June 12, 2025 All in for Dresden! Chatham This Week
Say what you want about amalgamation, but one positive thing about it is that there is an entire community of over 100,000 people standing firmly united with Dresden in its opposition to a proposed landfill site on its doorstep.
And, in this David vs Goliath situation, that can only be a good thing, as the developers involved are stepping up the offence with a new public relations campaign aimed at changing local hearts and minds.
Now, I’m not sure what changed since last March when Andrea Khanjin, the province’s Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks issued a statement saying she’d require a full environmental assessment, but that entire process is now in jeopardy.
Khanjin’s March 15 statement read: “In recent weeks, I’ve heard concerns raised by the local community and municipality regarding York1’s proposal to reopen and expand a dormant landfill.
“This site was established over 40 years ago, prior to Ontario’s requirement that landfills undergo an environmental assessment. In keeping with the process that any other landfill would be required to undergo today, I will be taking steps to require this project to complete a comprehensive environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.
“This would require this site to address local community concerns and mitigate potential impacts before it could open.”
Hmm, where did it all go wrong?
Well, for starters, Khanjin is no longer the environment minister. Rather, she’s now the Minister of Red Tape Reduction (I kid you not!), and Todd McCarthy is the new environment minister.
McCarthy is a lawyer and previously served as the province’s Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery. He’s on record as stating he wants to strike a balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy.
McCarthy is also the same guy who was caught on camera earlier this year whilst campaigning, claiming a 2018 video of Premier Doug Ford promising to open the Greenbelt for development was “fake news.”
The constituent whose doorbell camera recorded the conversation said later she was “dumbfounded” by McCarthy’s claim.
So, this is what we in Chatham-Kent are up against.
Oh, that and a glitzy new website presented by some shadowy organization called Get Building, which purports to be a grassroots movement aimed at creating more housing in Ontario.
Its own website states: “To get those homes built, municipalities will need to cut red tape, liberalize land use rules, streamline approvals processes, and reduce fees and taxes that are all acting to block or slow development.”
Far be it from me to be cynical, but those seem more like words coming from developers than the average Ontarian. 
And why would this group be involved with the Sustainable Dresden website anyway?
That website seems to be aimed at calming the frazzled nerves of those of us in Chatham-Kent who are concerned about this proposal.
We’re told that, “The YORK1 site in Dresden will NOT be a traditional landfill – it will be a Regenerative Recycling Facility for non-hazardous construction and demolition materials ONLY.”
I bet you’re feeling pretty relieved now that all those trucks will just be filled with nice things like wood, drywall, concrete, bricks, asphalt, shingles, plastic and metal.
And, if we’re to believe this website, the project will have a “positive environmental impact,” by diverting construction waste from other landfills and “by generating alternative raw materials and alternative fuels…”
Wait, what?
Now, I’m no rocket scientist, but that seems a little concerning to me.
Luckily, the website was able to explain that the site will turn “clean wood into mulch, compost, raw material for particleboard or paper manufacturing, and will turned mixed wood waste into alternative low-carbon fuels.”
Er, I don’t like it already, but that’s just the tip of the reclamation iceberg.
Apparently, rock and rubble would be used in cement and concrete production, shingles could be used for things like asphalt pavement, cold patch, new shingles and scrap metal could be used for things like automotive parts.
And, just in case you were wondering if anything can be done with scrap drywall, it “can be processed to be made into agricultural fertilizer and an alternative raw material for the manufacturing of gypsum products.”
The proposed site would be operating from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. six days a week, and be open to “any company, organization or individual who has acceptable non-hazardous construction material to dispose of.”
By now, you’re probably wondering what’s in this for Dresden?
Fear not, the website assures us that “YORK1 wants to meet with decision makers to support local infrastructure priorities.”
Alrighty then…
Fortunately, the municipality is gearing up for the good fight and last month Mayor Darrin Canniff fired off a letter to McCarthy.
He reminded the minister of the 2024 promised environmental assessment, and told him that if the York1 proposal is approved, it “would have a devastating impact,” throughout Dresden and surrounding communities. 
“Those who would be impacted include children, homes, farms, schools, businesses and importantly, our neighbouring Indigenous communities of Walpole Island First Nation and Delaware Nation at Moraviantown.”
Exactly – maybe we can get the feds involved since clearly the provincial government just wants to ram this through.
It should also be mentioned (briefly) that back in February, YORK1 sold the Dresden landfill for $2.5 million to a company called Whitestone Fields Ltd., which is (not) coincidentally co-owned by YORK1 President and COO Brian Brunetti.
Interestingly, Whitestone seems to be pretty much a non-entity, as even the Sustainable Dresden website simply refers to YORK1 in reference to the proposed facility, so who’s kidding who here?
Last March when I wrote about this proposal, there was information on the project on the YORK1 website. Now, that’s disappeared, and despite my concerted efforts, I haven’t found anything comparable related to Whitestone, including a website.
But, the last thing I’m sure anyone in CK wants, particularly given our significant role in agriculture, is this proposed project.
Stay well, and Defend Dresden my friends!

Sept. 18, 2025 Please sir, we want some more… Chatham This Week
Back in 2023, Ontario’s provincial government announced a new fund aimed at ‘rewarding’ municipalities successfully undertaking the hard and necessary work of delivering new housing to their communities.
At the time, Premier Doug Ford announced $1.2 billion over a three-year period through the Building Faster Fund (BFF) as part of his goal to see 1.5 million homes built by 2031.
Recently, it was announced, with much hullabaloo, that Chatham-Kent would be receiving $440,000 this go-round for our efforts toward the cause.
Provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Rob Flack was on hand at the Bradley Centre to make the announcement, telling those assembled “we are in the midst of a generational housing crisis.”
Of course that comes as no surprise to those of us who live in CK, but what did raise an eyebrow for me after the initial thrill of our community being ‘rewarded’ so graciously by the province, was the apparent randomness of the ‘rewards.’
I’m sure there’s some magical formula that would explain why a ‘keener’ municipality like ours, which not only met but exceeded our 2024 housing starts target received $440,000 while a community I’d never even heard of – Georgina – received a whopping $1.3 million.
As it happens, Georgina is a town slightly south east of Barrie on Lake Simcoe, with a population of fewer than 50,000 people.
Naturally, I was now more curious about this particular ‘reward’ for municipalities and why ours was on the low end so I decided to try and figure out the rationale for the funding (misguided fool that I am!).
I started with a little spreadsheet because numbers, as you know, are not my friend.
I looked at 11 different funding announcements for this year’s money, but by the end of that exercise I was no closer to understanding it than I was in the beginning.
Now, only communities which hit 80 per cent or more of their housing start targets for 2024 were eligible for this ‘reward,’ and Georgina barely squeaked in at 81 per cent, which for that community equated to 417 housing starts.
To be fair, our 311 housing starts in 2024 represented 338 per cent of our target, so clearly, we hadn’t set our bar too high in the first place, but still…
I mean, when you think about it, $440,000 is pretty much the cost of one new house so really, how big a deal is this ‘reward.’
In case you’re wondering why I keep typing ‘reward,’ instead of just reward, like all the big announcements from the province do, it’s because I find it a little irksome in a Big Brotherish kind of way that the province doling out some of our own tax dollars should be construed as a  ‘reward,’ rather than a legitimate funding partnership between upper and lower tier governments.
But that’s just me, and from now on, I’ll just write reward, but you’ll know what I mean!
At any rate, our neighbours over in Sarnia only managed to generate 164 housing starts last year, which was still 198 per cent of its target. They received a reward of $400,000 for those efforts, making it the only municipality I came across in my non-scientific study to receive less than us.
Not surprisingly, Toronto was rewarded with the lion’s share of the funding, hitting 88 per cent of their target and building 20,999 homes in 2024. For that, they received $67.2 million.
Closer to home, London’s 3,723 housing starts (95 per cent of its target) gave them $11.9 million of BBF cash, while Windsor raked in $5.2 million for its 2,306 starts, which represented 213 per cent of their goal.
A little further away, Haldimand County reached 89 per cent of its target, with 310 housing starts earning that municipality $991,985. Kawartha Lakes hit 83 per cent of its target, walking away with a cool $1.4 million reward for its 451 housing starts.
If you can see any rhyme or reason to these numbers, you’re a better mathematician than me, but don’t pat yourself on the back too hard, because the bar is exceptionally low in this department.
All joking aside, we have many housing challenges in CK, some unique to us, and others shared by municipalities not only across the province, but across the country, and it seems to me that there must be a better and more equitable way of delivering provincial funding than this reward system.
And the cynics among you will not be surprised to hear that the official funding announcement for our friends in Georgina was made by their provincial representative Caroline Mulroney, MPP for York-Simcoe.
Stay well my friends.

Oct. 16, 2025 Too easy to blame the homeless Chatham This Week
You don’t have to look far in Chatham-Kent to hear or see a lot of chatter about the homeless population these days.
I recently read on social media that two busloads of homeless people had been brought into our community, but once again it seems more of a ‘heard it from a friend,’ report than anything that could actually be confirmed.
Considering the fact that so many people have smartphones which allow them to easily record and post videos and photos, you might think that by now we’d actually have some incontrovertible proof of this assertion.
This sort of accusation has been made before, and even though the municipality denies it, the rumours abound.
Moving the ‘official’ homeless encampment from downtown Chatham to the PUC site on Grand Avenue served only to exacerbate the issue, setting tongues to wagging and fingers to tapping.
But to what end?
Solutions are hard to come by and when solutions do come to fruition, like the new transitional cabins that are now operational, there are still complaints.
And when proposals come forward that might alleviate some of the pressure by tackling the addiction and mental health components of homelessness by providing services such as Indwell offers, there are complaints again.
We know there have been issues at other Indwell facilities, but as someone who lives in the east end not far from the former homeless shelter, I can assure you that there have been issues there as well.
Wherever members of this particular demographic congregate there are bound to be issues, and the amount of money it would take to set up a system to avoid that is far more than any level of government is prepared to spend.
And let’s face it, it’s a tough sell to the general public as well.
On the one hand, we don’t want to help people who have created their own problems in the first place; on the other hand, we understand that people have very real struggles and need help and dignity; on another hand we recognize it’s going to take a significant financial investment to address the challenges that lead to homelessness; on another hand we want permanent solutions not stop-gap ones but on the other hand, we don’t want to pay for any of that.
We need to remember that homelessness is not unique to our community, nor is municipal council or any other level of government solely to blame.
In recent decades we have watched as huge corporations moved their operations overseas when at all possible, eliminating well-paying jobs and the taxes they generated
We have also watched as the wealthiest individuals and corporations have managed to avoid paying taxes through one loophole or another, and we’ve also seen foreign entities coming in and snatching up Canadian real estate and resources, pushing up housing and other accommodation costs.
In the process, the burden for supporting the services that not only the vulnerable, but all of us rely on, has fallen more squarely onto the shoulders of the working class.
As a result we’ve seen successive governments reducing services and closing facilities that managed to keep homelessness to a minimum.
And we, the general public, didn’t complain much at the time, because, well, it didn’t really affect us.
Love ‘em or hate ‘em – and I’m personally in the ‘hate ‘em’ camp – taxes play a huge role in providing the many services we all rely on, and that have created the social safety net that has helped make Canada the nation it is today.
We also can’t ignore the role that poverty plays on those who are homeless and under-housed, and we can expect that situation to only get worse as prices continue to rise and paycheques and subsidies fail to keep up.
We need governments at all levels to focus on spending that helps improve the quality of life for all of us and to walk away from the ‘nice to do’s.’
We also need to ensure that corporations and wealthy Canadians are paying their fair share of taxes so that so much of the heavy lifting isn’t done by everyday workers struggling to make ends meet.
It’s too easy when we’re struggling ourselves to look for somebody else to blame, but let’s not kid ourselves, it’s really not the homeless.
Stay well my friends.

Nov. 20, 2025 Municipally idle thoughts… Chatham This Week
So, way back in October of 2023, architect ROA Studio Inc. submitted a building condition report on the Civic Centre and Fire Station #1, which pulled together information from four engineering companies.
Contained in the report are “opinions of probable costs,” to address the deficiencies observed in the two buildings, but “not for repairs or improvements that could be classified as: (1) cosmetic or decorative; (2) part or parcel of a building renovation program or tenant improvements/finishes; (3) enhancements to reposition the subject property in the marketplace; (4) for warranty transfer purposes; or a combination thereof.”
In other words, the bare bones cost of addressing the many maintenance issues that had been piling up for some time in those buildings.
The 95-page report also included the proviso that the costs were only preliminary ones and that of course, they could certainly change.
This is the report that informed the $27.7 million estimate for the Civic Centre, but on a recent Sunday morning, I was ‘digitally’ thumbing through the report as I was interested in the fire station part of it.
That figure came in at $6.8 million.
What really surprised me though, as I skimmed through the pages was the almost embarrassing nature of the work that had not been done on the building and needed to be addressed.
During the entire community hub discussions, we’ve heard a lot about the need for a new HVAC system, and previous council’s apparent lack of willingness to do anything about it.
But, I can’t help but wonder why the heck we couldn’t manage to address such minor issues as a cracked downspout connection, brick work, screen replacements, painting the balcony rail, replacing a door or carpet if necessary and so on.
These are all things that if they were issues in our own homes or businesses, we would address because as grownups we realize that if you don’t fix it now, it’s just going to get worse.
And yes, we can’t all afford to do the work necessary on our properties, but the civic centre and fire station are not private properties, they are public ones.
I think it’s fair to say there has always been money in the budget to address the minor concerns that have been put off for so long that they provided a great excuse to just walk away from the building in favour of something new and shiny.
Let’s just hope that council and administration are better caretakers of the new building than they have been of the old one.
Now, after that massive preamble, let me get back to what I was originally going to talk about, and that’s the ultimate plan for Fire Station #1.
To be fair, I’m not sure what the ultimate plan for it is, or if there is one, as it hasn’t really been part of the discussion even though the building housing it is slated to be sold to help pay for the hub.
The other building the municipality is planning to sell is the current Chatham Library, which, as I was lying awake one night mulling things over, as you do, it occurred to me that perhaps the library property could be used for the new fire hall.
Selling points are that we already own it, and that it is not only close to downtown, but would be a good jumping off point to other areas.
Then, as I was canoodling that, I thought about the idea of keeping the fire station exactly where it is and converting the civic centre into affordable apartment units.
Again, the municipality is planning to sell the civic centre to help offset the costs of the hub, but considering that one of our top needs at the moment is affordable housing, one can’t help but wonder if there’s no way to salvage what is a signature building in our community and repurpose it into something that could help meet the needs of residents.
If somebody else does come along and buys this primo waterfront property, it’s possible that it eventually becomes housing in the form of condos or high-end apartments, which is all well and good, but at least if the municipality is involved, we could ensure it’s affordable housing.
And what if it isn’t used for housing?
I suppose there are lots of potential uses for the building, or at least the land it’s sitting on.
And what if it doesn’t sell?
We’ve certainly been very vocal about all of its deficits, so maybe nobody is going to come and take it off our hands.
Of course the same thing could be said for the library, but who knows?
The municipality is anticipating receiving $9.4 million in total for the two buildings, which would help offset the costs of the hub, but we still need a new fire station.
That cost hasn’t been built into the cost of the hub, but it doesn’t really matter in the end as we all know there’s only one taxpayer.
Stay well my friends.

Dec. 4, 2025 Keep shining CK! Chatham This Week
For almost eight years I commuted to my job as a reporter/editor at The Observer in Sarnia, and throughout that time I never ceased to be amazed at Chatham-Kent’s ability to often outshine the benevolence of that community.
I lost track of how many times similar charity events would be held in both communities and CK residents put their counterparts to shame both with numbers of volunteers and dollars raised.
This, despite the fact that on average, Sarnians are a little more well-to-do than we are.
Not only are we generous, but we’ve also proven ourselves to be creative and out-of-the-box thinkers when it comes to helping out our neighbours.
We recently witnessed yet again, the outpouring of support that is The Gift, with volunteers and donors across Chatham-Kent united in the goal of ensuring that everyone in our community enjoys the best of the season.
It’s a lofty goal indeed, but in conjunction with so many other charitable organizations, corporations and individuals across our vast community, there is a much greater chance of that happening than there would be if we all just sat back and threw our hands up in the air, overwhelmed by the need.
And make no mistake, the need is great.
In fact, the needs in our community are so overwhelming that at times it’s too easy to look for others to blame for our own struggles.
The bitterness of some CK residents spills into social media and while I can’t condone it, I can certainly understand it.
Every year I hope that this will be the year that I don’t have to write something along the lines of ‘the need is greater than ever in our community…’ but I don’t have to tell you this isn’t that year.
But, I do hang onto hope and I can see some positives ahead, although we have to remember it took us a long time to get where we are today and change for the better won’t happen overnight.
However, at this time of year, many of us allow ourselves a much-needed and welcome break from those worries, turning our attentions to the more pleasant matters of putting up the Christmas tree, baking up a storm, and as previously mentioned, doing whatever we can to make the holidays merrier for our family, friends and neighbours.
Hordes of volunteers are hitting the streets, ringing bells, dropping groceries into collection bins, and generally doing what they can to brighten up the season.
Of course, not everyone in our community celebrates Christmas, and those who adhere to other religions have their own significant days to celebrate, but no matter our religion, if we have one, most human beings are united in wanting nothing but the best for their family, friends and neighbours.
Time and again, residents of Chatham-Kent show up to deliver on this promise and no matter how difficult their own circumstances may be, very few people would refuse to help someone else if they were at all able to do so.
I’ve often observed that those who have struggled the most can be the most generous and it is their own lived experience that feeds their desire to help.
Of course this isn’t always the case and there are many people in our community who give selflessly simply as a result of their generosity of spirit.
No matter what fuels CK’s giving nature, let’s continue to tap into it and keep on shining throughout the holiday season and beyond!
Stay well my friends.

Dec. 11, 2025 Real estate buying spree needs to stop Chatham This Week
There’s no question that affordable housing is a big issue, hot button topic in Chatham-Kent these days, and for good reason.
But, it’s starting to look like we’re living in a municipality without any real plan to address the matter short of buying vacant school properties for future projects.
Back in 2021, council approved a recommendation that empowers administration to submit expressions of interest on the municipality’s behalf “when surplus properties are made available from school boards or other levels of government … to determine if the property warrants consideration to purchase for housing opportunities…”
Earlier this year, council also approved a follow-up motion from Coun. Anthony Ceccacci which expands that to include privately owned properties.
With its most recent decision to purchase the former St. Ursula School from the St. Clair Catholic District School Board (SCCDSB), the municipality (read, we the taxpayers) are now the proud owners of not one, not two, but three former school properties.
You may recall that last year council agreed to buy the former St. Agnes school property from Indwell, and more recently the former John N. Given property was also purchased.
The goal of all this – and it’s a lofty one – is to provide attractive opportunities for the municipality or other entities to develop housing on those properties.
The report recommending the most recent purchase of St. Ursula’s notes that the large size of the property – at 4.4 acres – means the land could potentially be used for “more than one development of new affordable housing, as well as potential development for parks and recreation purposes.”
The report also suggests that funding is available to do preliminary architectural drawings and a detailed cost analysis if the municipality itself plans to own and operate such a project.
In the meantime, the entire school will be demolished and staff have been authorized to go out to tender on that project.
As well, staff will be releasing a Request for Expression of Interest for the site to be developed for affordable housing projects “that may also contain Attainable Housing.”
In case you aren’t sure what the difference is between ‘affordable’ and ‘attainable’ housing, as I wasn’t, apparently attainable housing means the cost of housing, utilities and property taxes when applicable, eats up no more than 30 per cent of a household’s pre-tax income.
Affordable housing on the other hand, means less than 30 per cent of the household’s pre-tax income is spent on housing and utilities/taxes.
It’s a fine line really, but the reality is that affordable or attainable housing is just one element of a crushing financial load on many in our community and what looks like affordable housing on paper may not be as affordable as it seems.
Just to inform myself about what that means exactly, I did the math based on an annual income of $36,608 which is what a person working 40 hours a week at the minimum wage of $17.60 per hour would earn.
Using the 30 per cent threshold, that individual should be paying no more than $10,982 per year on housing, or $915 per month on what would be considered attainable housing.
By contrast, I also did the easy math that tells me a household with an income of $100,000 a year should be spending no more than $30,000 per year or $2,500 a month on housing costs.
Looking at those numbers and what’s actually available for people in our community, it’s clear that we definitely need more affordable/attainable housing.
However, it seems to this simplistic thinker that it would be a lot better to buy a property and build something on it before buying another property and then another in hopes that a private developer will swoop in to build something, or CK will win the upper tier funding lottery and we’ll get a windfall that will allow us to build the housing we so desperately need.
We’ve certainly already learned from the previous St. Agnes school experience that the best laid housing plans can easily go awry.
Back in 2021 Indwell purchased that property from the SCCDSB for $635,000. Their plan was to create a supportive housing complex, with CK committing to chip in $9.7 million towards that project. However, when a federal grant was turned down, the project was axed and the municipality ended up buying back the property for just over $1 million last year.
At that time, staff were directed to demolish the building and to continue considering the site for future supportive and/or affordable housing projects.
It does also seem sadly ironic to me that we’re tearing down buildings while we still have people living in tents with winter looming, but here we are.
I’m not sure what the rush has been to buy these properties in the first place as they don’t seem to be going anywhere, but that’s just me I guess.
The good news is there’s the will to build more affordable/attainable housing in the municipality.
Let’s just hope there’s a way to meet all the needs.
Stay well my friends.

Jan. 29, 2026 Efficiency matters… Chatham This Week
Well I don’t know about you, but I must admit I don’t really care one way or the other if the Chatham-Kent Public Utilities Commission (PUC) remains a separate entity or is sucked into the behemoth that is the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.
All I care about is being able to access safe drinking water and offload waste water at the most efficient and affordable price possible.
Throw in a side of financial sustainability and I’ll be a happy camper.
Unfortunately, based on previous experiences of neglect that are all coming home to roost now, neither the PUC nor the municipality have shown themselves to be great stewards of their assets, but hope springs eternal.
I get it.
Nobody likes to throw money at unexciting things like infrastructure, but the fact is, we all use it and we owe it to future users to pay for what we use and to maintain the system so it will be there for them.
And now, because we haven’t been doing that on the water/wastewater end of things, we’re all going to be playing a painful game of catch-up for at least the next decade.
Already, the PUC have announced their residential customers will be looking at an average annual increase of $132 for 2026 but that’s just year one.
Consultants KPMG presented a report last month recommending that the PUC be dissolved, and “reintegrating water and wastewater services directly into the Municipality’s administrative structure.”
The report notes that the existing PUC was formed back in 1998 as part of the ‘shotgun wedding’ (my words, not the theirs!) that created Chatham-Kent in the first place, and has not had a governance review since.
I’m sure nobody would argue that such a review is long overdue, and typically, one would assume that streamlining services should be a positive thing. Typically.
The KPMG report states that “significant” capital expenditures in the amount of $1.18 billion are expected over the next decade, and we’re all on the hook for a good chunk of that, one way or another. By that I mean, even if provincial and/or federal dollars are made available, as one possible outcome of placing the PUC under the municipal umbrella, it’s all taxpayer money.
But where are these costs coming from?
That’s what I was wondering, and as it turns out, it’s a combination of factors, including increased demand due to “signifiant residential growth since 2018, accelerated further during COVID, as well as the increased demands from greenhouses in the area.”
As well, and not surprisingly, the report states that, “as noted in previous consultant reports, Chatham-Kent’s water and wastewater infrastructure has suffered from underinvestment over time.
“This funding gap, due in part to insufficient rate setting practices, has resulted in delayed maintenance and increased risk of service disruptions.”
Needless to say, push has come to shove.
Thanks to the vastness that is Chatham-Kent, the PUC currently oversees five water treatment plants, one stand-alone distribution system and more than 1,700 kilometres of water mains. It also has an inventory of some 3,700 hydrants, 10 elevated tanks and nine reservoirs, servicing about 39,000 customer connections.
And on the wastewater end of things, the report states there are “seven treatment plants, two lagoon systems, 533 kilometres of sanitary sewers, and 60 pumping stations, supporting nearly 31,000 customer connections.”
That’s a lot of water on the go!
By 2031, the water system is projected to move from its net financial asset position of $7.6 million in 2024, to a net debt position of $497.4 million. Over the same period, the wastewater system is expected to go from $30.9 million in assets to $9.1 million in net debt.
To throw even more scary numbers at you, the report further states that, “Debt levels for both systems are expected to rise significantly to finance major capital projects, with scheduled principal repayments totalling $56.6 million for water and $14.6 million for wastewater through 2031.”
Of course, dissolving the PUC and incorporating the system into the municipality won’t dissolve those bleak financial projections, but the hope is that moving forward, the water/wastewater system would be better positioned as a municipal department which should streamline decision making and bring the service into better alignment with municipal policies.
One thing that jumped out at me in the report though was the recommendation that if the municipality does take over the PUC, it should consider creating a “skills-based advisory committee that provides quarterly guidance on major projects and growth-related initiatives.”
To ensure that people with the necessary skills sets would be attracted to positions on the board, it’s also recommended that members would be financially compensated for their work, in contrast to some other municipal boards with volunteers.
As it stands now, the current PUC board consists solely of council members, few of whom have the necessary expertise.
But here’s where I guess I’m a little naive.
If we hire the best people and there are plenty of industry requirements and standards in place that we have to attain, why do we need to have a board to oversee them?
At any rate, no decision has been made yet and council referred the Dec. 15, 2025 report recommending KPMG’s recommendations ‘in principle,’ back to staff for more information and public consultation.
Administration are also recommending the transition begin this year, so I expect it won’t be long before we have a decision.
Stay well my friends.

March 12, 2026 We all make mistakes Independently published
We all make mistakes, and the best thing to do is own up to them and move on.
Not so apparently, if you’re Chatham-Kent Mayor Darrin Canniff or some of the councillors who recently attended a meeting with OHL representatives about a potential team coming to Chatham, which would of course, necessitate construction of a new arena.
On March 6, Chatham-Kent Mayor Darrin Canniff told CTV news that, “we’re looking at possible locations right how, so we need to acquire the land and get a plan in place.”
But, at Monday’s council meeting, several council members said they had been blindsided by the news and questions from constituents as they had neither been invited to said meeting, nor informed about it afterwards.
Councillors Rhonda Jubenville, Alysson Storey and Michael Bondy – all of whom had been excluded from the meeting – voiced their concerns, only to hear Coun. Brock McGregor – who had been in attendance – speculate that these concerns were politically motivated.
Hello! Of course they are.
This is Politics 101.
The decision of which councillors to invite and not to invite could be considered quite political, particularly in an election year.
If we had a hockey coach or a former NHL player on council, bring them in,” said Bondy. “But seven on council?”
It was a little disheartening to have to hear Coun. Jamie McGraill gently explain to the menfolk who could see nothing wrong with the optics or the situation that, “I don’t think this is about OHL hockey. It’s about everyone understanding what’s going on.”
Anybody with an ounce of common sense should understand that when we’re talking about the potential for a multi-million dollar arena being constructed – and if we can believe CTV – the site is already being scouted and could be purchased before an OHL team is secured – then all of council should at least be given a head’s up, if not an invite.
But perhaps the lowest point of the entire discussion was when Storey asked who was at the meeting and did not receive what should have been a simple answer.
Why everyone who had been at the meeting couldn’t simply just raise their hand is beyond me, but here we are (edited to add I was later told that they had).
I haven’t heard anybody saying we don’t want an OHL team in Chatham, but it’s this kind of bungling that alienates voters and casts a shadow over what could ultimately be a very good thing for our community.
It’s really not a good look for CK, and I can’t imagine the OHL would be impressed.
But hopefully, as McGraill suggested: “Going forward, lessons learned…”

March 22, 2026 On the Dresden landfill situation… Independently published
Note: This column was never published as Chatham This Week’s goal was to do a more in-depth hard news story. Since that hasn’t happened and the paper no longer exists, I figured I’d put this out there after making a few updates.
Last June, after I wrote an earlier column about the proposed project at the former Dresden landfill, I couldn’t stop thinking about the Sustainable Dresden website that seemed to have sprung up out of nowhere and is still online.
Aimed at soothing frazzled nerves, the website urges us to “Support The Regenerative Recycling Facility in Dresden, Ontario.”
But unlike what one might see on a typical website, there is no contact information or indication of who is behind the website, other than GetBuilding, the self-declared “country-wide grassroots movement” whose stated goal is “to take (I think maybe they mean ‘tackle’) the obstacles to increased housing supply.”
The GetBuilding logo shows up on the Sustainable Dresden website and the site is copyrighted: 2025 – GetBuilding, so clearly there is a connection.
Off I went to the GetBuilding website, which offers visitors the opportunity to subscribe to their newsletter or to make a donation if you so desire. Again, no information about humans involved with this site.
As you can imagine, that left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth, so I decided to dig a little deeper.
That led me to a flyer that was created a few years ago by GetBuilding aimed at convincing residents of Port Hope to embrace a “new, state-of-the-art long-term care facility” in that community.
In the flyer, it states: “Some people have an unrealistic and utopian vision of Port Hope that includes ZERO growth and ZERO development. They want Port Hope to look in 2023 the same way it did in 1923 and to continue looking that way in 2123 …”
Nice. Certainly not the best way to win friends and influence people I shouldn’t think.
At any rate, that was an earlier offering from our ‘friends’ at GetBuilding.
Then I found a Facebook post from someone in Port Hope claiming that GetBuilding is a creation of Mobilize Media Group (MMG), run by Jeff Ballingall.
Interesting though that was, somebody’s Facebook post does not a credible claim (or column!) make, so I soldiered on.
And, in case that name rings a somewhat distant bell, it’s because Ballingall is the founder of both Ontario Proud and Canada Proud, and according to his biography for the Next Campaign Summit 2026, he is indeed the president of MMG.
In his biography for a speaking engagement in September, 2024 called Influence and Impact: Leveraging Social Media for Political Victory, it states that as president of MMG, “His work has helped shape the strategies of leading Conservative politicians and corporate leaders.” It also notes he is “the founder of Ontario Proud and Canada Proud, two of the most influential political social media accounts in the country…”
According to its own website: “Ontario Proud is a people powered organization that stands up for working Ontarians. We’re fighting for affordable government, holding our politicians accountable and working to defeat failed leaders like Justin Trudeau. More than 368,000 Ontarians have joined our cause, making us the largest digital advocacy group in Ontario politics.”
By now you’re probably wondering what any of this has to do with our little landfill in Dresden.
According to Wikipedia, “Ontario Proud is a right-wing Facebook viral meme-maker, political advocacy group, and third-party advertiser.” The Wikipedia page indicates it was founded by Jeff Ballingall in 2016 as a Facebook page.
According to Elections Ontario, Ontario Proud is listed as a Third Party Advertiser and in 2018 it received 100 campaign contributions, including approximately 20 donations of $10,000 and higher. Most of those large contributions came from developers and construction companies.
You might recall that there was a provincial election in 2018.
This was all quite interesting, but I still couldn’t find a connection between Ballingall and GetBuilding, try as I might.
But then I had a little brainstorm.
Could I find out who owns the GetBuilding domain name?
And as it turns out, the answer was yes.
One Jeffrey Ballingall of Mobilize Media Group Ltd. registered the GetBuilding domain name back in 2021, and most recently updated it last September.
So now, I could connect Ballingall to GetBuilding and we already know that GetBuilding is connected to the Sustainable Dresden website.
Then I turned my sights on the Sustainable Dresden domain name, but was only able to determine it was registered on May 21 of 2025 and registered through a Canadian domain company, which is as far as I got.
As the municipality and concerned residents of CK continue to oppose this York1 project, it’s more than apparent we’re engaged in a David vs Goliath scenario.
There’s no argument that the province needs more housing which inevitably means more construction waste, including the wood, drywall, concrete, bricks, asphalt, shingles, plastic and metal listed on the Sustainable Dresden website.
The site insists the recycling nature of the proposed facility will “have a positive environmental impact,” and notes that, “this is an existing landfill that has fallen into a bad state.”
Last fall Chatham-Kent was served by York1, alleging that it requires no land use planning approvals from municipal council, and Ontario’s Conservative government agrees.
Given the hand-in-glove relationship between York1 and the various right-wing and Conservative players here, it’s going to be an uphill struggle for council and local residents.
But, it’s a battle worth fighting, not just for our community, but for similar communities across Ontario.
When it comes to choosing your battles, this is one that Mayor Darrin Canniff and council have rightfully chosen and it’s crucial that municipalities such as ours retain the right and responsibility to determine what happens here.

April 25, 2026 What’s the rush on this waste-to-energy project?
Independently published
As council hurtles towards a Go/No Go decision this Monday on a multi-million dollar waste-to-energy project that would see the municipality partnering with the Chatham-Kent Public Utilities Commission and Greenfield Global Inc., it’s unfortunate that most residents of CK, including yours truly, aren’t overly familiar with it.
The idea is for an anaerobic digester operation to be built and operated near Greenfield’s ethanol plant on Bloomfield Road, and it’s an idea that’s been kicking around for a while now, but is suddenly looming large.
An anaerobic digester (AD) operation, in case you’re wondering, would convert industrial, commercial and institutional organic waste into Renewable Natural Gas (RNG), which certainly sounds like a good thing.
If approved, the facility would process around 370,000 wet tonnes of organic waste, the majority of which would come from the ethanol plant, with the remainder coming from CK’s Irwin Street wastewater plant.
If that’s not enough material to keep the works profitable, a report to council notes that, “Additional organic feedstock has been secured to add profitability to the base case economics.”
That would address one of the key concerns identified by consultants Deloitte, who have been working with the municipality on the viability of this project – estimated at just over $160 million – since 2023.
Their report states that: “While the basic logic utilized in the financial model appears reasonable, our review identified inputs and assumptions within the model
that present key risks to the rate of return and ability to secure commercial debt…”
One of the concerns identified is ensuring Greenfield can provide sufficient feedstock to ensure the facility’s profitability, and Deloitte recommended the municipality “consider an agreement with the Greenfield ethanol plant for the provision of feedstock volumes per annum at a specific price,” as well as identifying alternative feedstock providers.
As well, their report noted, the plant’s outputs would be subject to the whims of governments and their policies, as well as market volatility, both of which could impact profitability.
In addition to the RNG, which would be upgraded to renewable natural gas that would go to Enbridge’s natural gas pipeline networks, the facility would also dry out the resulting sludge, which would then be converted into “high value organic fertilizer for agricultural use.”
This all sounds very state-of-the-art and certainly a good way to help address the Climate Emergency which the municipality declared back in 2019.
According to the report to council, funding the investment would see up to $16 million coming out of the municipality’s Investment Portfolio, with another $25 million to be borrowed from Infrastructure Ontario.
Earlier this week, Mayor Darrin Canniff and CFO Gord Quinton held a media information session on the project, and, according to an article in the Chatham Daily News, the expectation is that over a 30-year period, it would generate an estimated $123 million in dividends which would help offset property taxes and PUC rates.
Not everyone’s convinced though, and while a Let’s Talk Chatham-Kent survey didn’t garner much in the way of responses, at least one of the 10 respondents had some serious concerns about the project: “Having spent over a decade supporting bio gas installations; they are money pits,” the unidentified respondent wrote. “There is a reason a private for
profit company wants a municipal investor and it’s not because Green Field (sic) doesn’t have
a dump truck big enough to drive all the money the project will generate, it’s because
they need somebody to hold the bag after they get the government money.
“If this was an incredible investment opportunity once again, you’d have people lined up around the block to invest,” the respondent continued. “It’s a waste of limited capital; while sounding like a noble cause, (and) will only expose Chatham-Kent to the dangers of a bio gas plant. Run Away; don’t walk.”
However, several respondents were in favour of the project, citing a positive impact to the environment and the promise of lower taxes.
Greenfield actually operates and is part owner of a similar facility – SEMECS – in Varennes, Quebec, which, according to the company’s website is one of North America’s largest AD facilities.
SEMECS is made up of three regional municipalities in Quebec’s South Shore, as well as the company Biogaz EG, which is owned by Greenfield and the Valorr Group.
According to its website, “SEMECS treats 120,000 tons of organic waste from local municipalities each year and turns it into biogas and fertilizers.”
In a 2021 article, Greenfield CEO Howard Fields discussed the Varennes project with Clean50, saying the AD facility was initially built to convert 40,000 tonnes of organic waste annually, but an expansion in 2021 would increase its capacity.
Indeed, a Government of Canada media release from May of 2022, noted that the SEMECS expansion cost almost $100 million, with the federal government contributing just over $25 million and the province of Quebec adding another $40 million.
Fields also said launching SEMECS was not without some challenges: “It’s really critical to stay focused on the end-game because the parameters change constantly with multi-year projects.
“For instance,” he said, “the structure of government programs can continue to evolve for years. Following elections, financing realities can shift. Not to mention, engineering and technology challenges abound anytime you undertake something truly unique.”
Ultimately though, Fields said that: “We wholeheartedly believed in the technology, the business model and the purpose behind the project, so failure was never an option.”
I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that CK residents need a little more time, and a little more information about this proposed project before the ‘do or die’ moment comes this Monday.

Note: I stopped writing these independent columns when I began to think about running for council as I felt it would be a conflict of interest to do so.