There’s still time to Say No to the MZO 

Today I wrote to Premier Ford, Minister Flack and MPP Allsopp, to entreat them not to approve the MZO application from Picton Terminals. 

The materials on the website make it sound as though the application is being made on behalf of Prince Edward County for the sake of its economic development.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Picton Terminals does not have and should not have carte blanche to do whatever it wishes, to the clear detriment of the public good.

Picton Terminals acts only on its own behalf, to line its own pockets, regardless of the consequences.

It has acted in flagrant abuse of environmental considerations and local land use and shoreline regulations and bylaws. It has ignored strong and consistent public opposition to any rezoning. It has failed to consult the Indigenous community and the general public. 

The property in question is a private port. It does not fall under federal jurisdiction according to Transport Canada as Picton Terminals has suggested.

The MZO route amounts to a bypass tactic, given that, at its core, the issue is a legal one, already in process before the courts. Resorting to an MZO to settle the court case the County brought against the Terminals in order to confirm its jurisdiction and the meaning of County bylaws seems to me a perversion of justice.

The planning process was working, and the court application should continue. I see no advantage to the Government of Ontario intervening to grant an MZO. On the contrary: allowing the application will only further enable Picton Terminals’ egregious exploitation of the shoreline and waters of Prince Edward County.

The application omits key information:

Rezoning would allow containers and ocean-going container ships to operate in and out of shallow and narrow Picton Bay, the source of drinking water for over 7,000 people, and an ecosystem already under threat.

There is a sad history of, and the frightening potential for, oil, gas, and other toxic spills in this delicate waterway.

The current quarry operation will at least double, allowing for all the other infrastructure required for a mega-container port.   

There is no significant economic benefit to Prince Edward County: I don’t see opportunities for job creation, affordable housing, or any other provincial government priorities. On the contrary again: approving an industrial mega-port in an area renowned for its world-class viticulture and tourism would be a travesty.

There is still time to send comments to the Minister. The portal is open until July 17.

JC Sulzenko, South Marysburgh

Roads are Tourist Infrastructure

I read with interest the article by Karen Valihora, By the Books ( June 4). It explores and exalts the work of Visit the County to promote tourism. According to this article, the County saw an increase of visitors in 2024 of 35,000 more than the year before. A total of 360,300 unique visitors came to the County last year. Don’t get me wrong, this appears to be great and shows the good work of VTC in promoting the County as a tourist destination.

An increase in visitors also brings unwanted increase in traffic along the routes to reach the various destinations within the county.

The editorial by the same author, Wedding Country (July 2) appears to suggest that the number of visitors to the County will increase even more.

Oftentimes along Highway 33, also known as the Loyalist Parkway, in my view the preferred route for visitors reaching the County from the west, the amount of vehicular traffic can be substantial. With the increase there is an increased number of individuals that are far from respectful of our roads. They use them as a dump for their soda cans, coffee cups and fast food wraps. Not good. I would like to believe that most visitors are decent people and do not litter along our roads. But some do not seem to care.

     This brings me to two points:

First, some funds should be used to “educate” tourists about good behaviour, meaning that they are welcome to visit but please do no litter your garbage along the sides of our roads.

Second, this is in my view not a responsibility of VTC, but as the County appears to be benefiting from this increased tourism in the form of the Municipal Accommodation Tax, I would like to suggest that the County should maintain the visual appearance of its roads, mainly along Loyalist Parkway. Of course there may be others, but this is for other concerned citizens to address.

The road mentioned above needs a lot of improvement, starting with proper weed control along its ditches, and replacement of dead trees. The lack of upkeep happens mainly along  properties that appear to be designated rural residential. Some may not have a house on the lot but are nevertheless owned by someone paying their taxes.

One may say that there are other more pressing improvements within the county and the municipality may not have enough funds for this work, but here I would like to disagree with that view. If the Municipality is collecting taxes from this increased tourism in the form of MAT, then part of those MAT taxes should be used to maintain the routes that allow the tourists to access the many areas of the County that eventually contribute to the increased revenue.

Henrique Pedro, Consecon