Home » Columns » Featured Comment: Leveraging What We Have & Who We Are
Featured Comment: Leveraging What We Have & Who We Are
The following comment was submitted in the article “Chatham-Kent is Creating a Story, says Mayor Hope”, and I wanted to feature it here to ensure it was not lost in the shuffle. Thank you to Chris Lozon for submitting this. I also would like to encourage others to collaborate on Chris’s suggestions here, as well as submit your own visions of Chatham-Kent’s future. Be sure to also download a copy of the summary of our recent Strategic Planning Sessions which can be found by clicking here.
Rob, as you can probably establish from my election campaign platform, we need to spend every ounce of effort and available resources in developing a ‘silver economy’.
Nearly 100 million people will retire in North America in the next 25 years…we need to get 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or so – whatever it takes – of the best, brightest and wealthiest to live here. Wind turbines are land-locking our best real estate (lakefront property). And their incremental economic impact to our community is likely minimal, perhaps even negative, on a net present value basis depending on their long-term impact on property value, which of course is yet to be determined. So let’s put the brakes on wind turbines. Instead, let us invest and develop our infrastructure along the lakefronts for residential/commercial expansion and focus our marketing as a lifestyle community for empty-nest baby-boomers. Brand Talbot Trail similar to what was done during the 90’s with ‘Silicon Valley’. But rather just focusing on ‘tekkies’ let Talbot Trail be a preferred destination for aspiring entrepreneurs across any and all industries that might enjoy lakeside living and recreational amenities. There is historical precedence involving the use of Talbot Trail as a settlement for American residents. So let history repeat itself. Similar opportunities exist in the Lake St. Clair region, but with the added benefit of being able to leverage francophone heritage and culture.
Now back to the central theme of recent CKDP discussion resulting from Mayor Hope’s address to local teens – do we want a university? Alright then. What if we start with a re-training and business centre geared towards mature students and aspiring boomer-entrepreneurs at the Southwest Regional Centre campus as part of our Talbot Trail strategy? Maybe in time that becomes a Polytech institute. Maybe (way) in the future we can consolidate the regional centre campus with Ridgetown Campus and Thames Campus (would obviously require serious discussion and negotiation with existing Institutions) under a single University charter, one that may involve and/or focus on language studies to make our business community more competitive in the global marketplace. But if all that were to happen, it will have flowed by focusing on being great at one thing – getting successful, experienced people with career renewal aspirations to live out their silver/golden years in CK. These people will ultimately prime the pump to Chatham-Kent’s prosperity. If you do the research and understand the economic fundamentals involved, we can be assured that all good things – including large industry – will flow from leveraging from this approach. Of this I am certain.
In the end, we need to diversify out of leverage. Not out of desperation. Not out of curiosity. And certainly not out of imitation. What we need to leverage is what we have and who we are instead of chasing what we’re not and/or what we don’t have. Let’s focus on the river’s path. Then let the river form the delta.
Zipper
December 18, 2010 at 4:59 pm
One of the greatest potentials for development on the cK Talbot Trail is the old Hospital Property at Ouvry. There are acres and acres of prime land for a trailer park or similar tourist attraction. It has it’s own sewer system and water supply and great beach frontage. Also the buildings could be turned into summer rentals or other endeavors.
If this property could be made available from the Government and zoned without the usual hassle it would be attractive to private investors.
I would not recommend cK to become involved in it in any manner whatsoever.
Free enterprise is the greatest path to prosperity.
Dan
December 18, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Where is Ouvry? Is it an old name for Dealtown where the old Southwest regional centre is? Ive never heard of it
Zipper
December 18, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Dan
You could be right on that but there used to be a old church near there called Ouvry Church, so I assumed that was the place.
Southwest regional center is correct.
Dan
December 19, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Thats where I thought u meant. There was a church just near the corner of the Dillon Rd but it was torn down a number of yrs ago leaving just the cemetary.
I think the facility is still being partially used as an OPP training centre, and a business incubator would be a great idea if the govt agrees to subsidize and not overcharge for rent and utilities to get new businesses up and running. The downside for an incubator is the distance from any decent population and the outrageous fuel prices which would be incurred because of the distance…I know how much the oil co’s are killing me due to my own location on Talbot Trail…so i think the type of business that could be incubated would be limited. If we could put some of our abandoned factories and schools which are located in populated areas I think would be a far better location for incubators.
The Southwest Regional Facility would probably make an excellent place for a long term care facility if a nursing home umbrella organization would put it to that use. We keep hearing about how more than half the beds in our hospitals are being taken up by..what do they call it..”alternative care patients”?? Those who should be in a nursing home, but apparently there are not enough nursing homes available in the province so the hospitals seem to be the only place to keep them? The provincial govt has been saying they are doing everything they can to fix that problem, and here they own a huge facility perfect for it, yet it sits almost empty. How many residents could it hold? 1000+? How many jobs would it produce here in CK? 500-1000? I don’t know. This fact alone makes it seem the prov. govt isnt really serious about fixing this problem and only give lip service to it, otherwise this facility would be used already. It would certainly attract between 3-10% of the seniors Chris mentions in his vision above.
Dan
December 19, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Oh, and it does have its own water tower and supply..and with a windmill or 2 or several solar panel arrays on its huge property it could probably supply its own electricity also feeding any excess into the grid.
Harry
December 19, 2010 at 1:35 pm
The SW facility has been for sale for several years now. Not takers yet.
WhyMeLord
December 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm
The SWRC is completely shut down. It’s only resident is a lonely security guard that watches over the hundreds of acres by himself, and only because the insurance company demands there be someone on site at all times.
Michael C
December 18, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Talbot trail and Shad Road according to Google maps, I had never heard of it either
watching
December 18, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Prime land for a TRAILER PARK?!?! You are joking I hope. Specially when you refer to a trailer park as a tourist attraction.
Michael C
December 19, 2010 at 1:08 am
Obviously owned by the Province. It would seem like good development land, and with knowing nothing about it, I would rate it as prime residential, not a trailer park.
Rob
December 19, 2010 at 1:12 am
Business Incubator Facility.
Little bird tells me that the province would let it go for a song.
Michael C
December 19, 2010 at 9:09 am
I just bet they would, must be costing a small fortune just to keep it mothballed.
I don’t have any smart ideas about what to do with it, I wish I did.
Sally Joyce
December 22, 2010 at 11:52 am
…business incubator mixed with shops for local artisans – an eco/art/entrepreneur village.
Michael C
December 22, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Where is the money coming from Sally?
Common Sense
December 22, 2010 at 5:10 pm
That’s easy. From the money tree just like every other idea Sally has.
Zipper
December 19, 2010 at 5:22 pm
To Michael C
I was using Trailer Park as a example, housing cottages or whatever, anything that makes industry and adds income to the community. With the government against cottages in Rondeau there will be a demand for lake front housing.
However cK is on a campaign itself to control and put up roadblocks to waterfront development, and that goes in five miles from the waters edge.
I have never met one business person in cK that does not think cK is a hindrance to development and business in general.
Michael C
December 20, 2010 at 9:04 am
This is the perfect time when you need some input from the muni. about that comment.
Is the policy against waterfront development?, if so why?
I do not have the feeling that the municipality is against business development, and I would like to see council defend itself on that charge, I would also like to see some evidence from developers that the situation in CK is anti development compared to other jurisdictions.
Zipper
December 19, 2010 at 9:07 pm
In the new strategic plan section B3 2:1 Redevelop waterfront properties.
I have no idea what that means, but I will wager a satisfactory explanation is not available.
Dan
December 21, 2010 at 11:15 am
I agree with and like many of your ideas here Chris, but I also find a number of inherent problems that would need to be overcome. I would like to elaborate, but not with the intention of being negative, but rather hoping that you may offer some additional ideas on how to overcome these points.
Attracting even a small percentage of retiring boomers: Very much agree, especially the wealthier, but I have noticed most people retiring tend to want to move to be closer to their sons/ daughters/ grandchildren, which are often the people who have moved away from here in the first place. It would seem to me that we still need much focus on keeping and attracting the youth in order to retain/attract many of these seniors. They don’t want to be travelling to Toronto or further for visits all the time. We also seem to attract the poorer of the boomers due to our low cost of living, which does some good for our economy, but the wealthiest have so many more options as to where they can go and aren’t afraid to spend a little more for better quality of life and entertainment. Im sure you agree we can work on that tho. But I do have doubts with the idea of these seniors “with career renewal aspirations to live out their silver/golden years in CK” I don’t see a great deal of seniors wanting to work more in their retirement years unless they absolutely have to in order to make ends meet. They seem more interested in enjoying leisure activities and time spent with family and friends while they still can. Some will want to work, or volunteer, or start a very small business/hobby, and thats great for us too, but I don’t envision many if any of them starting up a huge new industry which will employ large numbers. Id like to be wrong on that tho! So I would suggest that we still try to attract/retain the aging boomers with a strategy that also works in concert with attracting/retaining the youth as well.
I also believe as you do that our waterfronts are no where near their potential. But there are some HUGE hurdles to clear if we ever want to get somewhere with those. Municipal and provincial governments have made it extremely difficult to do anything with them anymore do to all the laws and regulations they’ve put in place. I think most developers just don’t have interest in all the headaches they would now have to endure to proceed with many projects. These include setbacks from Lake Erie due to erosion, permissions from the conservation authorities when doing anything within 30 metres of any body or course of water, and as you pointed out, the landlocking of great realestate due to setbacks from the windmills, as well as others. A great deal of our Lake St Clair frontage is marsh land, some protected, other privately owned, but environmental assessments and drainage issues make this very difficult and expensive to develop. The shallow waters and needs for dredging is a whole other story should some developments for certain ideas proceed.
Talbot Trail has huge hurdles too. I believe the municipality and province only want to see estate lots and mansions to near mansions built along Lake Erie. Without moving the whole road further from the lake, they have put in restrictions to what can even be built lakeside now…many lots are good for nothing but farming to prevent weeds. The cliffs along most of our stretch of Talbot Trail make beach access very difficult, so most can only look rather than enjoy that water. Many of the cliffs are highly unstable as well. And most of the road itself (Talbot Trail) is in EXTREMELY POOR condition..I know, I live along it!! My trucks rear wheel bounce right off the pavement every 50-100 metres as i cross heaved cracks in the pavement along most of it! Not very enticing or impressive for would-be investers.
I would love to see many areas along Talbot Trail graded softly down to the waterfront so beaches could be better utilized tho. Look at the business brought in by places like Grand Bend and Wasage Beach etc! Campgrounds and motels, cottage communities and restaurants and apparel stores could spring up, there’d even be better access for much more ice fishing in the winter months. We would need serious amounts of money from the province and feds just to get the infrastructure improvements necessary to attract investment for anything other than mansions along Talbot Trail just to attract any kind of other investment, and of course they have allowed way too many windmills too close to the road along Talbot Trail now to allow much of this to even be a possibility. It is a shame. Without more beach access there isn’t even much incentive to build a house other than on the lakeside of the road.
So I am curious as to what specific kind of developments you think would be feasible along Talbot Trail, and what steps you think might be need to be taken to overcome all the hurdles to development along this stretch of highway? I am all for it if you have the answers!
Chris Lozon
December 23, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Dan,
I would encourage you to visit what was my campaign site (under ‘Innovation’) for further clairification and please make use of the hyperlinks provided to supporting research.
I will say here that lakeside living does not necessarily entail ‘to the water’s edge’, nor are ‘retirees’ synonymous with ‘seniors’.
Chris Lozon
December 23, 2010 at 12:40 pm
site link: http://www.ckhereandnow.com
email: cjlozon@hotmail.com
Jim in Wallaceburg
December 21, 2010 at 5:09 pm
The Talbot Trail and the secondary roads along the north shore of Lake Erie, especially as they wind through Chatham-Kent, rate as one of my top 5 favourite highways in Canada – rivalling Highway 1A between Calgary and Lake Louse and Highway 133 on Nova Scotia’s lighthouse route. It is definitely one of our assets.
The former Southwest Regional Centre site is a gem for a creative entrepreneur – 330 acres of paradise potential. I believe both CKED and CK Tourism looked into the feasibility of a resort a few years ago – not sure where that went, but at least it was on the municipality’s radar.
As eccentric as Mary Lee is, she did have one of the better visionary ideas during the municipal election campaign – converting the former Southwest Regional Centre into an Environmental Research Centre.
chris
December 22, 2010 at 7:37 am
Interesting disscussion above, just putting in my two cents which really isn’t worth much anymore since the mint is considering the removal of the penny. Perhaps instead of more development of property on the shorelines, we could take a closer look at small towns that are in the CK area. Perhaps cheaper prices in land for development, somewhat safer enviorment to live in. The possibility of these small towns becoming green-eco friendly might appeal to retirees that want to garden, bird watch, etc. Surrounded by some of the finest farm land they could secure fresh fruits and vegetables in the 100 mile radius, drive electric cars, etc. Just some thoughts.
WhyMeLord
December 22, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Hmm, looking at small towns in C-K, eh? I thought that’s what CK Economic Development and CK Tourism were already doing for us since that’s what we ALL pay taxes for.
Pardon my sarcasm and thanks to Chris. This is the first time I’ve heard anybody but me say that we should look at stuff outside of Chatham and Wallaceburg in a LONG time.
gulliver
December 22, 2010 at 3:15 pm
A comment on the strategy of attracting retirees. (And before you go too far – remember what a retiree is usually now – late 50′s – to early sixties – many with pensions/ savings that they will be spending – most with 20+ years of active life in front of them.)
This is one of the things that we need to do aggressively- could be done with private money and municipal coordination . By private $ , i would suggest that the real estate and development sector – , perhaps with the golf course and other recreation providers , should be the primary funders of a promotional effort.
What are the benefits? we know that demographics point out that we are going to have many more in that ” senior ” category over next decade+. By attracting people here – especially those who will choose to be homeowners , increases the opportunities for private sector – home builders, renovators, lawn/ garden sector etc- all who are creators of local wealth. Please don’t write these off as low paying jobs – the best of each of those examples are run by local individuals who make a very decent living and supplying income to employees.And i know what i pay for services such as plumbing, electricians, not to mention computer support – another need for many retirees.
Of course the local entertainment sector is supported as well – have you checked out the demographics at many of the Capitol shows – or other entertainment venues? These are also the folk who have the time and energy for enjoying quality events.
Along with this – the need for personal support services will also increase- both from public and private providers. With the increase in demand comes the increased chance of expansion of educational/ training for those providing these services . Training could be received from places such as Thames Campus.
If you got this far – I don’t want to suggest that this is a solution to all that challenges our community – however it is certainly one legitimate area to pursue- that we are not doing at this time in a systematic way.
Attracting retirees is not a negative as others have suggested in other venues. It is a way to increase employment – increase the volunteer base , and bring new ideas into our communities – perhaps the last point is the most important.
Dan
December 23, 2010 at 10:08 am
This is most definitely a great suggestion and example of what we should be doing..it is also brings up an excellent example of how the municipal bureaucracy constantly gets in the way scaring off investors. A proposal was made some time back to develop a golfcourse complete with condominiums at the corner of Indian Creek Rd and Howard Rd. Yet the municipality held public meetings over what these developers wanted to do on private property, and a few nutjobs succeeded in killing the project because of their complaints that it would block their view of the farmfields!! I may be oversimplifying to keep it brief and make a point, but not only did these few people kill off development there in the direction the mayor believes we should go(towards the 401), jobs that would have been created, an increased tax base to allieviate some of the constant increases…but they also send a strong message to other developers who just are not interested in the hassles these NIMBY people create and they take their investments elsewhere. I heard the developers above mentioned spent over 6 figures on all the planning and appeals only to see most of the money go down the tubes thanks to a few people who had nothing better to do with their time
gulliver
December 23, 2010 at 6:13 pm
In response to dan – re golf course development – don’t ever let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Fact is – it was a planning issue – legal requirement to have public meeting – as you would want if your neighbours land was up for rezoning – municipal council eventually approved the plans for the golf course / condo- the province – and another local developer – then appealed the decision and prevented the development – to my and many other peoples disappointment – this was a very good example of local initiative that was squashed
Dan
December 24, 2010 at 12:36 pm
@ Gulliver…thank you for the good laugh I got from the first line of your reply…I do luv a good rant! hahaha…but in regards to the facts, I am not ignorant of them, and I did say in my post “I may be oversimplifying to keep it brief and make a point”. So I appreciate your inclusion of the additional details which are quite correct and I apologize to anyone whom I may have given the impression it was the municipality’s full fault.
We seem to agree that it was unfortunate to lose this development, but my view is quite different when it comes to the matter of public consultation. If we want Chatham, and all of Kent, to grow…we could put in taller buildings to avoid growing outward, but there is a limit to that, both in height, and in practicality. If we want to grow, and increase our tax base to relieve the pressure on the current residents and business, then it is obvious we have no choice but to grow outwards. And this will necessarily entail expansion into farmland. The province tries to limit our growth and opportunity by its policy of wanting to keep low taxed farm land in full production adding more difficulty to development and jobs..how nice, NOT, and they should butt out! Another developer appealling, I can’t say I know the exact details of their basis, but the optics look terrible on that since they are a competitor, but if there was an unfair benefit to one and not the other then I can understand. I do think they shold all play on a level field. But for the public consultation of neighbours I am in complete disagreement. I firmly believe that private property should be able to be developed by private owners the way they wish without undue obstacles. Unless the development has the potential of some public danger or hazzard, such as a chemical processor or waste management firm, or some factory that may entail loud noises all hours of the night, etc., then those neighbours should mind their own business with their own property, and shouldn’t be entitled to any say in the matter. In this case I think the golfcourse and condominiums were completely consistent with their existing surroundings. And any person making a complaint that “it blocks their view of the farmfield” should be promptly told to give their head a shake and be booted from such public consultation. Look at the most recent example of the house on Victoria we taxpayers will be on the hook to the tune of a hundred grand to move it back 14 feet due to a couple nutjobs claiming it blocks their view down the road..ridiculous. The cost and time for public consultations should be reserved for “serious” issues.
I’ll bet if the golfcourse/condominiums had gone in then Indian Creek Road and Howard Rd would have been repaired by now..they certainly get my vote for worst road in CK..the municipality should be ashamed for letting that continue. The ‘bumpy road’ signs only confirm they know its a problem but refuse to fix it…or maybe the neighbours complained that the road making equipment to repave the roads will upset their quality of life for a week (being sarcastic here)
So there is my rant for the day..sorry if it got in the way of any facts again LOL.
Merry Christmas to everyone!!