Questions 19 and 20 of the twenty-two put to the three candidates for mayor of The Blue Mountains on 30 August. All three returned a questionnaire. Every answer below appears in full and unedited, in alphabetical order, with nothing added.

---

19. Grey Road 19, and long-term care capacity

The question asked: Two separate projects sit on Grey Road 19. The first is a 192-bed peopleCare long-term care home on roughly 3.2 acres of municipal land the Town is selling, beside the new Craigleith fire hall. The second is a private proposal of approximately 612 rental units on a 9.95-hectare site at 796060 Grey Road 19, up to six storeys, being sought by Minister’s Zoning Order rather than by Official Plan and Zoning amendment. Separately, Errinrung is currently the only licensed long-term care home in Thornbury, with 60 beds. Please answer on each project separately. On the 192-bed long-term care home [support / oppose / undecided]. On the 612-unit rental proposal [support the units and the MZO route / support the units but oppose the MZO route / oppose the proposal / undecided]. If Errinrung closes or enters redevelopment before replacement capacity opens, the Town should [secure interim local capacity at municipal cost / accelerate the Craigleith home and accept a gap / reopen a Thornbury site / treat it as a provincial responsibility]. Outline your platform on long-term care and seniors’ housing, and explain your view of using a Minister’s Zoning Order to deliver housing in this town.

Two Towns, One Failure is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Peter Bordignon

192-bed long-term care home: ☒ Support 612-unit rental proposal: ☒ “Support the units and consider the MZO route following public consultation”* — the printed option read “Support the units and the MZO route”; he amended the wording and marked it, adding an asterisk to the note below.

* I support increasing the supply and range of rental housing. However, a project of this scale requires a public meeting where residents can review the proposal and raise concerns about servicing, traffic, height, density and environmental impacts. I would consider supporting the MZO route only if the community demonstrates support and the Town’s planning and infrastructure concerns are fully addressed. An MZO should not be used to avoid meaningful local consultation.

If Errinrung closes: ☒ Treat it as a provincial responsibility

My position was to always protect existing long-term-care capacity, support the 192-bed peopleCare home in Craigleith and expand seniors’ housing choices so residents can remain in our community as their needs change. I was instrumental in the motion that continued discussions with peopleCare and secured a new location after the Peel Street developer withdrew. I will advocate for provincial funding, protect residents if Errinrung redevelops and ensure municipal land agreements include firm timelines and safeguards.

A Minister’s Zoning Order can accelerate needed housing, but it must not bypass the community. I would consider an MZO only after a public meeting demonstrates support, and the Town’s concerns regarding servicing, traffic, density, environment and community benefits are all addressed. It should be an exceptional tool, not part of the normal planning process.

Marni Moreau

192-bed long-term care home: ☒ Support 612-unit rental proposal: ☒ Undecided If Errinrung closes: ☒ Reopen a Thornbury site

My mother was a nurse at Errinrung for years. I know what sixty beds mean to the families on this side of town. While I did not initially think the location was ideal, I do support the 192-bed home on Grey Road 19 and I want it open as quickly as the Province will move.

Sooner than later, I would like the Town to reopen a Thornbury site so people are not sent so far from their families and familiar surroundings.

Regarding the 612 rental units, I am undecided until I have seen the servicing numbers. The Town has about 14 percent of its water capacity left.

On the Minister’s Zoning Orders in general I have reservations. An MZO skips the Official Plan, the public meeting and the Council vote, and the Province’s own audit in 2024 found the orders were being used without clear rules. I prefer the Town’s process, done quickly and efficiently.

Paul Reale

192-bed long-term care home: ☒ Support 612-unit rental proposal: ☒ Undecided If Errinrung closes: ☒ Treat it as a provincial responsibility

I support getting the 192-bed peopleCare home built in Craigleith, and I want seniors’ housing options in Thornbury as well. I would bring 125 Peel back to market for seniors’ and attainable housing and use the Town’s land, planning and servicing tools to help create more places where residents can age in their own community.

The Province is responsible for long-term-care licensing and capacity; the Town should advocate strongly for local beds and remove municipal barriers, not take on open-ended provincial operating costs.

I also support more rental and workforce housing, but I do not support using an MZO to decide the Grey Road 19 proposal. An MZO should be exceptional, not a substitute for resolving density, height, servicing, environmental and infrastructure questions. I would put this proposal through the normal planning process and make that process efficient and transparent.

---

20. Shared recreation and cultural facilities

The question asked: Collingwood is weighing a multi-use recreation centre and an arts and culture centre, both of which have been dealt with in closed session. Residents of The Blue Mountains would use either facility, and Collingwood candidates are being asked in the parallel questionnaire whether they would build them in partnership with this town. Would you support The Blue Mountains partnering with Collingwood on a multi-use recreation centre [yes / yes, if the cost share matches the usage share / no / undecided]? Would you support The Blue Mountains contributing to a regional arts and culture facility [yes / only in-kind or land / no / undecided]? Alternatively, The Blue Mountains should build its own recreation facility [agree / disagree / undecided]. The maximum capital contribution I would support toward a shared facility is: ____. Before any Blue Mountains contribution, a full public business case — total capital cost, annual operating subsidy and this Town’s share — should be published [yes / no]. Outline your platform on recreation and cultural facilities: build alone, build jointly, or buy access. State the test you would apply, and what this town would want in return for its money.

Peter Bordignon

Partnering with Collingwood on a multi-use recreation centre: ☒ Yes, if the cost share matches the usage share Contributing to a regional arts and culture facility: ☒ No — written in: “The Town of The Blue Mountains already has local arts and cultural investments like our G.L.A.M., organizations and programming that serve our community. I believe municipal funding should focus on supporting and strengthening those existing assets rather than taking on the capital and ongoing operating costs of another regional facility.” Build its own recreation facility: ☒ Undecided Maximum capital contribution: “Maximum capital contribution toward a shared facility would be determined following a public business case and usage analysis.” Full public business case published first: ☒ Yes

I did support exploring a partnership with Collingwood on a multi-use recreation centre. Residents already cross municipal boundaries for recreation, employment, shopping and health services, so a shared facility could provide better programming while avoiding unnecessary duplication. To be honest, I am not so sure of Collingwood’s interest.

The Town of The Blue Mountains should contribute only after a clear business case establishes resident demand, capital and operating costs, location, governance and long-term financial risk. Our contribution should reflect the actual use by our residents, with guaranteed access, fair fees, location and meaningful representation in major decisions.

Although the Town of The Blue Mountains is part of Grey County, not Simcoe County, that should not prevent practical cross-boundary partnerships that benefit residents and protect taxpayers. Residents should see the proposal, costs and service commitments before council approves participation.

Marni Moreau

Partnering with Collingwood on a multi-use recreation centre: ☒ No Contributing to a regional arts and culture facility: ☒ Undecided Build its own recreation facility: ☒ Agree Maximum capital contribution: line left blank Full public business case published first: ☒ Yes

Collingwood is proceeding with a new proposed site for their new multi-use recreational facility. The plans are underway, and the currently proposed location is in Collingwood and would be less than ideal for the majority of Town of Blue Mountain residents. I know that recreation is a real gap here, and I believe The Blue Mountains should eventually plan its own facility, phased and fundable, the way the library and the community centre got built, which was by a large fundraising drive first. Also, the maintenance of a facility like this needs more than the cost to build and would add another big line to our annual budget so would have to be considered against our other financial needs.

If we cannot build something here in the near future, I would collaborate with Collingwood to see if we could buy access, for example a resident rate at a Collingwood facility.

Paul Reale

Partnering with Collingwood on a multi-use recreation centre: ☒ Yes, if the cost share matches the usage share Contributing to a regional arts and culture facility: ☒ Undecided Build its own recreation facility: ☒ Undecided Maximum capital contribution: “To be determined following a public business case.” Full public business case published first: ☒ Yes

One of the reasons the Town bought 125 Peel Street in 2021 was to secure land for a future multi-use community hub. Staff specifically identified it as a potential location for a regional recreation facility with neighbouring municipalities. That land is still ours, so before TBM commits millions toward a facility in another municipality, a portion of 125 Peel has to be part of the comparison.

I would test three options: build on land we already own, jointly build and own a regional facility, or purchase guaranteed access to another municipality’s facility. I would also invite Meaford and Grey Highlands into that discussion because our hockey, soccer, baseball and other programs already serve families across municipal boundaries.

The business case has to compare land, construction, debt, operating, maintenance and renewal costs. Ownership matters too. If TBM contributes land or capital, residents should receive an ownership interest or enforceable long-term access, fair booking times and rates, a governance role, and clear rights if the partnership ends or the asset is sold.

Two Towns, One Failure is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

To Subscribe; CLICK HERE