Questions

I understand why this idea is appealing, particularly as our community grows and more residents live in homes with smaller yards or in apartments. However, I don't support opening our sports fields for seasonal off-leash use.

Our sports fields are significant public assets, and there are practical concerns around damage to the turf, parking, liability and maintenance. There is also the issue of pet waste. Unfortunately, we already have challenges with people not picking up after their dogs, and these are fields that children and adults return to for sports once the season begins.

I do think we need to plan for more off-leash spaces as New Tecumseth grows, but location matters. Dog parks can be controversial, particularly for the residents whose properties back/face directly onto them because of noise, parking and increased activity.

Rather than trying to fit dog parks into established residential neighbourhoods or repurpose sports fields, I would like to see appropriate locations identified through the planning process as new areas develop. Commercial or mixed-use areas, or other Town owned lands with appropriate buffers from homes, parking and safe access, may offer better opportunities.

If we're planning communities for thousands of new residents, amenities for their pets should be part of that planning too.

Not a bad idea, if the residents commit to cleaning up the refuse. I have seen many parks littered with dog feces (not the one in Beeton but I am not a user of that facility). When the field reverts to sports use, I don't think users want to run through that stuff.

This seems like a practical idea. My family is not blessed with a dog so I don't have any experience with the off leash parks. One observation is that not all people are responsible and clean up thier business. The results are evident way too often, especially in the spring.

More objective information about this would help me form an opinion.

I agree — using off-season sports fields as off-leash dog areas makes sense. Dog parks in the middle of town create a lot of noise for nearby residents, so putting them on fields away from homes is the better approach.

The Town can and should consider dual use of our sports facilities and green areas. My approach has always been an attentive and collaborative one. Considerations like this are exactly why I seek residents’ input on every file.

I'd have to think this one through with staff. Right now, for example, my wife and I walk our dogs at Geoff Gaston every once and awhile. We use long leashes. While at the park we see people golfing, personal training and practising soccer, as well as walking dogs. If this park became a off season off leash I think it would still impact some others users. Something to think about though. Currently looking forward to the off leash park in Tree Tops to open up.

Yes, I think this is an idea worth exploring.

As our neighbourhoods grow and lots become smaller, residents need appropriate places to exercise their dogs. Rather than assuming the only solution is purchasing land and building new dedicated dog parks, I would support having Town staff identify existing public spaces that could safely serve more than one purpose at different times of the year.

That could include seasonal or temporary off-leash areas where the location is suitable, provided we consider things like fencing, nearby homes and playgrounds, field conditions, cleanup, liability and the needs of sports organizations that use the space.

I like solutions that make better use of facilities and land we already own. A pilot project at one or two appropriate locations could be a sensible way to determine whether this would work in New Tecumseth before considering anything permanent.

I’m not opposed to it, however most parks are not completely fenced and the Town uses the off season time to conduct maintenance. I do feel that each ward should have a designated dog park which ward 2 does not currently have.

Not in the form currently proposed. I voted against moving forward with the single-pad Beeton arena because I don't believe the cost provides enough benefit to taxpayers, particularly when we have other significant gaps in our recreation facilities.

The current concept is a very expensive single-pad arena, and the capital cost is only part of the equation. Once it's built, taxpayers are responsible for the ongoing operating and maintenance costs indefinitely. We also know that, as New Tecumseth grows, we will eventually need additional ice capacity. Building one new pad now and potentially having to address a second one somewhere else later doesn't strike me as good long term planning.

I've also listened to Beeton user groups whose needs extend beyond traditional ice sports. Ball hockey, roller derby and other dry-floor users need appropriate space too. I think we should be looking at how a future facility can serve as many residents and activities as possible rather than designing around one use.

I would like to see us investigate a larger, long-term recreation complex in Beeton, including whether the JOC lands could accommodate a twin-pad arena together with other recreation amenities, potentially including the future indoor pool. A larger site could also give us room for future expansion and ample parking as the community grows.

There may also be opportunities to fund the growth-related portions of a larger recreation complex through DC's, which should be fully explored before asking existing taxpayers to carry the entire cost.

I absolutely support maintaining municipal arena and recreation facilities in Beeton. The question for me isn't whether Beeton deserves investment. The question is whether spending tens of millions of dollars on a single-pad arena today is the best use of that investment. It isn't.

I believe Beeton is due for an expansion of facilities, but we have to re-examine the finances to minimize the tax burden. I believe we can achieve a facility build-out and enhancement without the projected (and almost always underestimated) budget of $44-$46M.

Our cumulative tax increase from 2022 is approximately 27%**

Adding 5%*** for the facility and then adding the usual tax increase due to inflation, etc. will result in a total tax increase beyond 5%. Many residents are unhappy with the constant tax increases.

**Adding the individual yearly tax increases.

***Although it's stated in the proposal that a 5% tax increase would be required, there is no stated clarity on the projected tax increase due to other factors, ands as such we can't know the total tax impact from 2026-7 and beyond.

The Beeton arena is a topic I have heard about since moving to New Tecumseth. It tends to come up as a sore point of broken promises.

No one should feel cheated and I understand the sentiment of injustice. The message comes across as "we deserve this".

Beeton has grown a great deal over the last few years. I would be interested to know numbers before I form an opinion. How many different users are we talking about across the different arenas? What is the cost per user and what do we charge them? Occupancy levels and demand levels etc.

The business case should make sense. If this is the best value for ALL residents, then we have to find a way to make it work. This shouldn't be an emotionally charged decision, rather a calculated rational action.

If someone has actual numbers, please share them.

No, not at all. We already have rinks available, and property taxpayers do not want an increase in taxes.

A 5% increase in taxation for the Beeton Arena is not something I support. My approach is that the replacement of the arena is something the whole of New Tecumseth deserves. But that doesn’t mean we should shoulder the cost alone. Many municipalities have built state of the art rec facilities with grants and funding from higher levels of government. It is those relationships and governments that I will bring to the table and secure funding from. Our town pays its fair share of taxes, and our residents deserve to see value for it.

As it stands now the Beeton Arena is already approved. Those who voted for it are Mayor, Deputy Mayor, councillors Jacks, Biss, Harrison-McIntyre, Cox and Masters.

I absolutely support Beeton having an arena. Where I struggle is with asking taxpayers, particularly at a time when so many households are already feeling financially stretched, to absorb an approximately 5% tax increase for this project alone.

The financial information presented to Council estimated the single-pad arena option at more than $44 million, with an equivalent tax-rate impact of approximately 5.47%. That’s significant, and it can’t be considered in isolation from all of the other needs facing our municipality.

So, would I support building that option today under the current financial circumstances? No.

That doesn’t mean I don’t support Beeton or believe it deserves an arena. Quite the opposite. I want Beeton to have a recreation facility that can serve that community for generations. I just don’t believe we should put ourselves in a position where achieving that one goal creates an unaffordable burden for taxpayers or prevents us from addressing roads, infrastructure and other priorities across New Tecumseth.

I would rather continue maintaining and repairing the existing Beeton Memorial Arena, provided it can be operated safely, while we work toward a more financially responsible path to replacement.

That means looking at future growth and the increased tax base it can bring to Beeton, development-charge funding where applicable, reserves, grants and funding opportunities from other levels of government. I would also want to revisit the project as our financial position changes rather than committing taxpayers to the entire burden today.

This is actually one of the reasons I support balanced growth across Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham. Beeton needs additional residents not simply for the tax base, but also to support its businesses, recreation facilities and community services.

I want a new arena for Beeton. The question for me isn’t whether Beeton deserves one — it absolutely does. The question is how we get there without placing an unreasonable burden on taxpayers.

Sometimes responsible leadership means saying, “Yes, I support the goal but no, I don’t support the way we’re being asked to pay for it today.”

This is a difficult choice as one option will upset one group, and another answer will upset another. However, as difficult as it is, decisions have the be made.

As I discussed the issue with constituents, the missing pool always comes up. Residents repeatedly noted how a year-round pool should have been included when the New Tec Rec Centre was originally built. Given the fact the prior council has already approved the arena, this question seems like a purely academic exercise. My view is I would have elected for the pool since New Tecumseth already has facilities available for all residents across Alliston, Tottenham, and Beeton. The pool would serve a larger demographic, including toddler swimming lessons, school safety programs, seniors and open public recreation. In addition, I do agree Beeton deserves a new arena as the existing one has run its course and is very costly to maintain. The broader question is what is best for New Tecumseth as a whole. The inability to access a pool forces families, seniors, and swimmers to travel outside the municipality or rely on private/seasonal alternatives. Having said that one cannot dismiss the impact a 5% increase and its demands will have on the already stretched taxpayer.

I had previously answered this question. Thank you :)

Pools are nice, but never pay for themselves. The 5% refers to the "arena build in one of the 3 options", not including a pool. Keep in mind that the 5% is on top of any other usual increase for any given year. The cumulative tax increase from 2022-2026 (inclusive) is around 27%.

Also consider that the p/i of the $46 million option (no pool) is about 2.8m per year. Then you add the operational costs and subtract the actual usage fee to arrive at the net cost, then add any repairs or depreciation. The cost to build is just one factor.

I believe we need to review the plan and instead of asking a service to offer a suggestion, we should come up with the requirements, with a FULL and comprehensive understanding of the actual costs, and then request a tender based on our acceptable budget.

In the current economic climate I am not in favor of any increase in taxes. I do reserve the right to change my view if there is strong evidence that supports the need.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me on what makes this a pressing need. My limited view suggests that we are trying to honor a broken promise to appease part of the electorate.

Every taxpayers dollars are important and we should not burden the whole town with debt at the expense of what was a campaign promise of last century. Decisions should be made according to what services would stimulate the town and all residents.

I don't think building another arena was wise — we already have numerous rinks. If anything, we need an indoor public pool. And I don't want taxes to increase, so I'd fund it through development charges and grants instead of property taxes.

I think this question has been asked already.

If I could only choose one, I would choose an indoor pool. I believe it would serve a broader range of residents, from children and families to seniors, recreation, therapy and competitive use.

But I don’t think that’s how we should be planning for a growing community. We have three important recreation projects to consider: the Beeton arena, an indoor pool and the field house.

I would have moved all three forward to the next steps so we could better understand the costs, funding opportunities and options before making final decisions.

We need to plan ahead for the whole community, while still being realistic about what taxpayers can afford and when.

This question doesn't really give the whole picture. Because it's important to also note a pool comes at even higher tax rate increase. But this does circle back, how do we find additional funding if we only move one of 3 projects forward and that's where previous council made an error in my opinion.

Yes. I do have concerns about a 5% tax increase to build another arena before we address the need for a pool. I believe we need to look carefully at our community’s priorities, affordability for taxpayers, and whether our recreation investments are meeting the needs of the whole community.

I had previously answered a similar question twice. My answers are above. Thank you for the important question and please reach out for any further clarification.

This is an important issue, but there are a number of issues in there. Homelessness isn't always connected to drugs and vice versa. The homeless issue is becoming worse as the cost of living increases, made worse when jobs are shed due to restructuring, trade issues, etc. The cost of construction, even before the slowdown, increased beyond the reach of many would-be buyers, and even renters as costlier builds require higher rents to compensate for the building costs.

It may be time to reconsider different forms of home ownership, different modes of construction which will allow for homes to be built more quickly and for less cost, without sacrificing quality or safety. Those will be more accessible for buyers or renters.

Drug use, I have no expertise in, as this issue often involves other emotional or development concerns, and I believe we have to seek advice from professionals on this problem.

But there is a problem here; an individual can't be forced to accept addiction treatment, nor can our medical system continue to absorb the increasing costs of hospitalization for those who continue to use hospital services due to their drug use.

Further, the casual acceptance of drug use is likely a factor in the increasing numbers of individuals finding themselves addicted. How do we prevent this? There will be many, many opinions, but it starts at home for most. In some cases, difficult domestic situations make situations even worse for those who are marginalized. Many issues to address.

Once we figure out why our number is increasing we can perhaps curtail that and work with the county to come up with a plan. Part of this plan would be looking at other communities that have had success and seeing if we can apply that to our situation. I'm part of a committee that meets every two months. This is front of mind. By listening to the experts, comparing our situation with other communities, and being willilng to take action, we will hopefully come up with a solution for all.

This is an issue I am still learning about, so I don’t want to pretend I have all the answers or promise a program before I understand exactly what is already being done and who is responsible for what.

What I can tell you is where I stand.

First, I don’t believe homelessness and drug addiction are the same issue. People can find themselves homeless for many reasons: the cost of housing, loss of income, family circumstances, mental health, disability or simply having nowhere affordable to go. Addiction is part of the picture for some people, but certainly not everyone.

For someone who is homeless, I want us focused on getting them into appropriate, permanent housing and helping them regain stability.

Where addiction is involved, I believe we need a much clearer path to treatment and recovery. I understand the public-health reasoning behind providing clean drug-use equipment, but I struggle with a system that can provide someone with the equipment to continue using drugs when we still can’t provide them with a clear and timely path into treatment when they’re ready for it.

I also don’t believe allowing homelessness, open drug use and the problems that can come with it to become entrenched in our downtown is compassionate to anyone. It isn’t fair to the person struggling, and it isn’t fair to residents, businesses and employees who deserve to feel safe in their community.

As a Town councillor, I wouldn’t control most of these services. My role would be advocacy. I would be asking the County, Province, health services and the agencies involved some very direct questions.

Where are the treatment beds? Where is our supportive and transitional housing? What happened to the rapid-rehousing program announced for Alliston? How many people are we actually moving from homelessness into permanent housing? And if what we’re doing isn’t getting people off the street, what needs to change?

I have compassion for people who are struggling. But I also believe we can expect better results.

Helping someone shouldn’t mean accepting that living on the street is the best future we can offer them. And caring about those individuals and caring about the safety of our downtown can absolutely happen at the same time.

This problem also seems to be getting worse. I'll address the drug side with our police force and look into what resources are available for the homeless situation.

This is an urgent concern. I am working on being better informed so I do not have a plan at the moment.

I had previously answered a similar question above, but in response I want to assure you I am aware of the issues. I am hearing about this regularly from residents, and I see some of these issues myself.

We need to separate homelessness from criminal behaviour, because they aren't the same thing. But theft, property damage, open drug use and discarded needles cannot simply become something residents are expected to accept.

I would like to see greater police presence in areas where problems are recurring, better education about using the OPP non-emergency reporting line, and a clear process for quickly reporting and safely removing discarded needles.

At the same time, we need to work more closely with the County and agencies like S.H.I.F.T. to address the reasons people are living on our streets in the first place — housing, addiction, mental health and poverty.

We can have compassion for people who are struggling while still expecting our parks, neighbourhoods and properties to be safe.

This is an important and increasing problem for many communities. A similar question was posted. My response to that one is here:

"This is an important issue, but there are a number of issues in there. Homelessness isn't always connected to drugs and vice versa. The homeless issue is becoming worse as the cost of living increases, made worse when jobs are shed due to restructuring, trade issues, etc. The cost of construction, even before the slowdown, increased beyond the reach of many would-be buyers, and even renters as costlier builds require higher rents to compensate for the building costs.

It may be time to reconsider different forms of home ownership, different modes of construction which will allow for homes to be built more quickly and for less cost, without sacrificing quality or safety. Those will be more accessible for buyers or renters.

Drug use, I have no expertise in, as this issue often involves other emotional or development concerns, and I believe we have to seek advice from professionals on this problem.

But there is a problem here; an individual can't be forced to accept addiction treatment, nor can our medical system continue to absorb the increasing costs of hospitalization for those who continue to use hospital services due to their drug use.

Further, the casual acceptance of drug use is likely a factor in the increasing numbers of individuals finding themselves addicted. How do we prevent this? There will be many, many opinions, but it starts at home for most. In some cases, difficult domestic situations make situations even worse for those who are marginalized. Many issues to address."

Further to your question, I do believe in harm reduction, in appropriate environments (a Hospital or a Clinic environment attached to a Hospital), but not in stand-alone locations near schools or residential areas. I do also feel that when someone has been convicted of a drug related crime, the option of treatment should not be a choice. Part of the restitution/rehabilitation would be or the individual to accept treatment with the hope that they can get their life in order and be free of the chains of addiction. I expect my opinion will anger some.

I believe I've answered this already.

Yes. We need to do more, and I think we need to be much more proactive.

I share these concerns personally. My grandchildren have encountered discarded needles in our parks. My mother has told me she doesn’t feel as safe downtown anymore. We shouldn’t be finding drug paraphernalia in public places or seeing people injecting drugs on our sidewalks. Residents should not be expected to simply accept that as normal.

I believe in compassion and helping people. Homelessness is not always addiction, and people struggling with homelessness, addiction or mental health need real help. But compassion does not mean ignoring public safety.

I also want to start asking tougher questions. How many people are actually homeless in New Tecumseth? How many are being housed? How many are repeatedly using emergency services? How many complaints are we receiving about needles, theft and property damage? How quickly are discarded needles being removed? What programs are we funding, what are they costing, and most importantly, are they working?

We already have the Town, County, OPP and numerous agencies involved. The Nottawasaga OPP Detachment Board also gives our municipalities a forum to raise local policing priorities and review information from the Detachment Commander.  I want those organizations sharing meaningful local statistics, setting measurable goals and reporting the results back to the public.

And when something isn’t working, we need to be willing to change it rather than continuing with the same approach.

People who need help deserve a path off the street. Residents deserve safe parks, safe streets and a downtown they feel comfortable using. I don’t want to measure success by how many programs we have. I want to measure it by whether the situation in our community is actually getting better.

• Create a very simple needle-response standard. One phone number or reporting method, location logged, rapid pickup, and monthly public reporting of where discarded needles are being found. If particular parks or downtown locations repeatedly show up, deploy cleanup/outreach resources there instead of waiting for residents to keep reporting the same problem.

• Connect people with serious addictions directly to treatment. Simcoe now has a HART Hub system combining addiction treatment, mental-health care, primary care, housing and case management, and an additional 13-bed supportive-housing program is planned.  A practical question for New Tecumseth is: How many of our residents are actually getting into it, and how quickly? A service in Barrie isn’t much of a solution if somebody living on an Alliston sidewalk never gets through the door.

• Separate the populations instead of treating “the homeless” as one problem. Someone who lost an apartment because rent became unaffordable needs a very different intervention from someone with severe addiction or complex mental-health needs. Simcoe’s rapid-rehousing program is specifically designed for lower-risk, situational homelessness, while HART is aimed at people with more complex addiction/mental-health needs.

I agree this issue is increasing and it must be dealt with. I'll be talking with SHIFT to get a better understanding of what resources are available, and we do need a bigger police presence.

Thank you for raising these major concerns. Discarded needles and drug paraphernalia are an urgent problem which we must address. The disposal bins placed around the town are a step in the right direction. As a parent also I agree that we have to protect our children from these harms. Yes I will do something about it.

My understanding is that these are separate issues which often overlap. We can't paint it all with one brush and expect a genuine resolution.

Property damage and theft are unacceptable. Robbing people of thier livelihood and dignity is equally reprehensible.

The drug problem is abhorrent. From a business perspective it makes no sense either. When your customers are unable to pay then in a traditional transaction you cut off the supply. Instead it seems like the supply is plentiful and much more cost effective than food grown locally. So we need to understand that we are dealing with a situation where things are not as straightforward as they seem. Only some of the effects are evident.

Superficial activity can mask the situation for a while. As the people of NewTecumseth and Simcoe County, we'll need to take concrete steps to address the causes as much as we can. The response can't be to go around demolishing encampments without alternate accommodation.

Unhoused people need Dignified Shelter.

Therapy and Mental Health support for many is not available.

Drug dealers ought to be identified and face justice.

Addicts need a sustainable treatment plan and recovery support.

As a developed society we can do better. Let's set aside judgment and work together to find ways to improve all our lives. Trouble doesn't stay put, so the lessons we learn can strengthen our community to be more resilient and responsive to the needs of tomorrow also. Life happens. How can we help them?

To the best of my knowledge, the NTRC name was chosen because the building was built to serve all residents in New Tecumseth with unique offerings, such as the indoor soccer pitch and twin pad ice rinks. Plus we already had the "Old Alliston Arena" as it's affectionately known, or our Alliston Memorial Arena which could be confusing.

This issue actually came before Council during this term when signage appeared overnight referring to the NTRC as the 'Alliston Community Centre'. I supported maintaining the New Tecumseth Recreation Centre name because I believe major municipal facilities can belong to the entire municipality regardless of which community they happen to be physically located in and moreover, because user groups who had stationary, websites, insurance forms and other documentation in the NTRC name said it was confusing to their visiting groups and would be costly to update.

There's a history here. A lot of it has to do with us being one community and not three distinct centres. I believe it was the first big build after amalgamation. The Alliston Memorial Arena follows suit with the other two centres.

Great question! And I have to admit, when I saw “Alliston Community Centre,” my first thought was ACC… and apparently Toronto already had dibs on that one. 😂

But there actually is some history behind the NTRC name.

When the New Tecumseth Recreation Centre opened in 2007, Alliston Memorial Arena was still being used as an ice arena. Its ice-making equipment was removed when the new twin-pad NTRC opened.

Alliston Memorial kept its name, and importantly, it really is a Memorial. It was built after WWII and dedicated to those who lost their lives in the First and Second World Wars. That name and history deserve to be preserved.

From what I’ve been able to find, naming the new facility the New Tecumseth Recreation Centre was intentional. Although it is physically located in Alliston, the idea was to create a facility that represented Alliston, Beeton, Tottenham and our rural community. It was meant to belong to all of New Tecumseth.

Personally, I think there was some good thinking behind that. We don’t have to give up the individual identities and history of Alliston, Beeton or Tottenham to also have something that carries the name we all share.

And besides… NTRC has probably grown on us by now. 😉

Because it was the first arena built after amalgamation in 1991

Good question. Using NewTecumseth is a good way to build our unified identity. It is like the Business Improvement Associations and other service groups.

No, I paid for my own campaign 100% and have no affiliation with any developers, contractors or agents.

Hi Jason,

I do not have any support from delevopers, contractors or their agents or any other sources which may be precieved as illegal, unethical or unscrupulous.

Thanks

Tony Phekoo

Hello Jaison, and others. No, I have not made any promises, commitments, or otherwise to any developer, contractor or agent. In my 30 years as a Realtor, I have not affiliated myself with any specific builder/developer.

Regards,

Peter Barbati

Thank you for your question. I do not take campaign donations from developers, contractors or their agents - I never have.

I received nothing and have no developer influence whatsoever. Heck, I even follow the sign bylaws!

No.

No. I have received no backing, donations, or promises of any kind from developers, contractors, or their agents. My campaign and my positions are entirely my own.

Nothing has been offered. However I have made a pledge to donate Half of the first mayoral paycheck to an undisclosed charity. Additional donations may arise.

In the coming term, I will declare a pecuniary interest on anything to with Honda of Canada Manufacturing as my spouse and stepson are employed there.

Throughout my life, I have been actively involved with numerous political, religious, professional, cultural, charitable, and non-profit organizations. None of these involvements represent a pecuniary (financial) interest, nor did they ever pose a financial conflict of interest. In addition, I currently do not belong to any of the past aforementioned groups or organizations that has any pecuniary interest in the results of my becoming elected ward counsellor.

I am the current president of the Tottenham & Beeton Chamber of Commerce. I have been and will be participating in various committees, the education bursary committee and other area business committees as they become available or are introduced. I try to work closely with the local BIA as well. Of these, none are a pecuniary interest.

I work for the Simcoe County District School Board, I’m a member of Kiwanis, and I run a hockey program called Ice Elements that rents ice from the town. I also have a business that lines soccer fields for SSU.

I have been involved with a number of community organizations over the years, including the Alliston Curling Club, South Simcoe United Community Living Association, South Simcoe and the Alliston & District Chamber of Commerce. My current community memberships include PROBUS and the Royal Canadian Legion.

I do not currently have a financial or pecuniary interest in any of these organizations. If elected, should a matter come before Council where I have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest, I would declare that interest and follow the requirements of Ontario’s Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

None. I have no pecuniary interest in any organization or group, either now or previously.

None.

I had previously answered the same question above. Thank you :)

Timely issue. There are differences between Data centers and A.I. centers.

As for the disconnect, there is an agenda and communication is not part of the agenda. Masses of data are collected, collated, and used to promote policies.

In Europe, a "digital passport" is proposed to allow individuals to use the internet...all in the name of promoting safety for minors.

promoting internet safety can be as simple as mandating the use of a filterable suffix (.prn, .adu, etc.) But, although this will allow parents/guardians, libraries, companies,, educators to block access to inappropriate sites, it will not allow for the more profitable ability to control information access.

Bill 34 (Canada) has some strengths, but also some inherent weaknesses, or gray areas, which will allow the government to decide on what is and isn't acceptable.

Getting back to your initial question though, data is not something that can be held in a corral and if it is not built here, it can be built across the highway, with the exact same outcome.

Stopping a data center will not prevent government overreach, changing governments or their policies will. Bill c34 is attached here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/safe-social-media-act.html

I don't want them, I'll vote against them.

I will say no to large AI data centres in New Tecumseth.

This isn’t about being against AI or technology. It’s about whether this particular type of development makes sense here, and I don’t believe it does.

We already have serious infrastructure challenges ahead of us. The Town itself says our current water planning does not provide the capacity needed for growth to 2051 and that additional capacity will require significant infrastructure investment. We are currently working on additional groundwater supply, water storage and booster pumping capacity just to support the growth already coming.

I don’t support adding a large AI data centre, with potentially significant electricity and water demands, to that equation. And I don’t believe the relatively small number of permanent jobs typically associated with these facilities justifies dedicating valuable employment land and infrastructure capacity to them.

Our water, power, land and infrastructure are valuable resources. My priority is using them to support our residents, our existing businesses and employment growth that actually brings meaningful jobs to New Tecumseth.

So my answer is clear: if a large AI data centre is proposed in New Tecumseth, I will not support it.

First of all we do y have the water or electrical grid to support.. I’ll be voting no against

Progress requires challenging what we do and why? I support progess and advances in technology. The AI and Data Centre debate is misplaced. Currently I can't find any reason for a technology company to invest in one here, there are numerous options that are better suited. Irrespective, protecting our environment from all forms of pollution and harm is an immediate issue that we should all work on. If the technology makes sense and is not harmful then I would be open to examining the benefits in NewTecumseth.

As a Morrison Ave. resident myself, this one is very close to home for me, literally. I have conversations with residents about what is happening in the Park (and throughout the area north to Young Street) on an almost daily basis.

I want to be very clear that needles, drug paraphernalia and human waste in a public park where children play and walk to school are unacceptable. We can have compassion for people struggling with homelessness, mental health and addiction while also expecting our public spaces to be safe for everyone, so I've already taken some action. Most recently, I arranged to have the lower limbs of the trees in the park trimmed to improve visibility and remove areas that were being used to hide or stash items.

I would like to see increased police presence and patrols in the area, better education for residents about when and how to report activity through the OPP non-emergency line, and conversations with the neighbourhood about establishing a Neighbourhood Watch or similar community-safety initiative – a committee I will be suggesting to our new Mayor for formation.

At the same time, enforcement alone won't solve addiction or homelessness. We need our outreach, mental-health, addiction and housing agencies involved so people using the park can be connected with appropriate services.