In my 25 years in this community there has always been talk of how to attract tourists. My first recollection is of a conference, with outside experts of course, with the theme of luring Yuppies to our fair shores. I was taken aback for a moment before I began laughing. Being an integral part of downtown Toronto for most of my working and private life, I could not imagine any Yuppie wanting to soak up the action of Kincardine or even experience the lights of downtown Tiverton.

Why do our politicians and some private citizens always want to define our town by tourist activities? Are they so embarrassed to have strangers come to their home that they feel a great need to tart it up? Do we want slots or perhaps a casino? That would bring people and maybe they would buy a hamburger at one of the restaurants. Some want a conference centre overlooking the north beach. The Tiny Tots Park will have to go, along with the Pavilion, but then, who cares about charm and history on our beaches? Whom will they bring to spend money? No one has suggested sexy body-rub-parlors though they would attract a certain tourist. The saga and the waste of resources continue still.

Like people fraught with inner turmoil looking haplessly outside themselves for solutions, our politicians keep seeking solutions far and away, when the answer is here. Should we spend $80,000 to tell folks in towns around us that we exist? No. Should we pay consultants to tell us what we already know? I would not. Should we turn ourselves inside out to attract people we well may not like because of their lack of rural small town values?

Kincardine is a beautiful municipality with its beaches and sunsets, its hamlets and village, woods and streams. What can be more pastoral than our undulating fields of colours and shades with horses, cattle, and sheep contently grazing? Constable could not paint a more superior landscape. That greed and lack of foresight will change much of this is indeed a shame.

But the Municipality still has its town with its historic houses mingled with attractive newer residences and modest dwellings, old and new, scattered throughout defying any attempt to label an area. There is Queen Street, a pleasant place to walk, shop, and gossip; bursting with promise, it cringes on hearing the shallow voices of progress. Restore me and maintain me, it begs, do not turn me into a theme park; do not slather me with false pretenses. Let me be what I truly am – Old Ontario, a time and place of quiet grace, respect, and pride.

Restore what needs to be restored. Maintain the town property starting with a dose of civic pride for Council. Look above the stores and discover the interesting architecture which could be more attractive with pride of ownership and a sense of history. Why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on slippery stones when Council cannot be bothered to bring washrooms up to acceptable standards? Is the outhouse still the norm. When is Council going to tell Sandy, owner of the dilapidated eyesore on Queen Street eyesore, about civil responsibilities that accompany civil rights? But then if gold will rust, what must iron do?

The town should be maintained and improvements made always with its citizens first in mind. Zoning bylaws should be kept as a public trust not to be overturned on the whim of speculators with no investment in the community. When this happens, we will attract those who appreciate the municipality as we do and they will come – not for the thrills, not for being Grand Bend North, nor for its obvious artificial theme, but for its history, tree-lined streets, well-kept homes, charming Queen Street, pleasant beaches, and services.

December 13, 2006

Canada is a multicultural nation. This should enrich us, should make us a model for the world. The fact that it does neither says much of our timidity to advance a worthwhile concept. Instead, we tout political correctness as if superficial behaviour will cover up the cracks in our society.

Saying we acknowledge all cultures and religions in Canada is meaningless when we do not allow the good and inspiring aspects of those cultures and religions to be practiced. Why should the man or woman in the street understand and respect our differences and our sameness when our educational institutions hide behind a bankrupt notion of political correctness?

Laws do not make us ethical nor do Ministry directives change our values. We need education administrators to have the moral courage to recognize that they have a critical role in advancing respect for and understanding of our differences. Our institutions should set the example, be the model in the practice of multiculturalism by recognizing, through instruction and concrete examples, the major cultures and religions in our society. We could start with our own North American Aboriginals, then the three religions that have much in common: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Their beliefs and practices are intertwined with the development of Western Civilization.

Once we are comfortable with celebrating their holy days, we can move on to Hinduism and its off-shoot, Sikhism. And let us not forget the rich culture of the Chinese flourishing for thousands of years with no concept of a Supreme Being whatsoever.

Would it be difficult to implement? No, certainly far less than it was to put political correctness in place with its committees and its corrective police. Resources are plentiful though care must be taken in their choice for religions range from the experimental left to the dangerous right.

Let the Christmas tree grow, more cultural than Christian, let the fish be a point of instruction. Bring out the Menorah and Star of David and know their symbolism. Assure that the Koran in Arabic and English be displayed for all to see and learn from. That would be a start to a year-round lesson of tolerance and understanding. If our schools and colleges cannot practice respect for and understanding of fundamental values then who can?

December 20, 2006

I had sincerely hoped to give mostly kudos during the incoming Council’s mandate, but then I did not expect the mandate to get derailed before it even started. Living in hope is certainly a mug’s game in politics.

Mayor Kraemer, without consultation or approval by Council, removed a wall between his office and that used by councillors at the Municipal Building for the sole purpose of increasing the size of his own office. This was apparently done even before he was sworn in as mayor. The cost to the taxpayers was $6,000. The mayor is reported as saying he has the right to do this.

The “Role of head of council” from the Municipal Act does not give the mayor the right to spend money without council’s authorization. Doing so is a breach of trust and abuse of his authority as mayor. That he did this even before being sworn in makes his actions even more abhorrent.

If Mayor Kraemer claims he did no wrong because the money came out of the Municipal Building’s Operation and Maintenance account, he is mistaken. Arbitrarily removing the councillors’ office in order to enlarge his own, does not fall under operational costs such as lights, telephone, and heat; and knocking out a wall for your personal use cannot be described as maintenance. It is a fudge.

That the mayor failed to wait until he could put his personal wish on Council’s agenda nor even had the courtesy to discuss the elimination of the councillors’ office with those councillors shows contempt for due process and lack of respect for Council. That the mayor spent public money on a personal whim is a serious breach of trust with the citizens.

I was disappointed in Council’s reaction. Councillor Anderson justifiably raised the issue and, while other councillors expressed their dismay, Councillor Haight was quoted as saying, “However, I think we have bigger fish to fry and I hope we can put this issue behind us quickly.” At that point, the biggest fish they will have to fry was left to rot in the chair.

Council must resolve to bell the cat immediately and attach a short leash onto the mayor’s ceremonial chain of office. Council must pass a motion to cancel all changes, return the office to the councillors, and direct the mayor to repay the $6000 to the Municipality. Unless they do this now then it will indeed be a long, miserable, slippery four years. The “well-being and interest of the municipality” and the law demand nothing less.

The mayor is one among equals with one vote and no veto, with specific duties as outlined in the Municipal Act. He is not a CEO of anything and if he does not understand that then it is up to Council, on behalf of the citizens, to teach him.