Much gets said in campaign season, but promises and commiseration are ultimately followed by reality.
Now that candidate nights and activities have been held across Wellington, it becomes clear that the Centre Wellington election is quite different than others. Different enough that it is worth noting.
In speaking with political types, some have wondered if the apparent silos that have emerged stem from the early campaign decision by the Chamber of Commerce to depart from a traditional community event to a pay-for-play gathering focused on business and the mayoral race.
From there other special interests emerged. While neither the Wellington Water Watchers nor Green Lanes offered up a public event, both groups held outreach exercises with the prospective councillors and mayors.
The Centre Wellington Community Foundation stepped up to host a meet-the-candidates event, where all vying for office were given a chance to introduce themselves to the community.
This newspaper published its annual candidate forum where every person seeking office was offered the opportunity to respond. Extensive coverage has been provided on nights held for the public.
The local non-profit radio hosted a special edition of its Swap Talk for mayoralty contenders.
The Guelph Wellington branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario held an event to discuss the virtues of planning policies that honour built heritage.
The Centre Wellington Black Committee held what may be the last official event for CW voters this season. A series of questions were asked of candidates present that evening. The article associated with that event is in this week’s newspaper.
Many of these local events were videoed and/or hosted by Wightman and Cogeco or featured on local weblinks of the organizations involved.
The piecing together of a council team relies on voters doing their homework. Promises or allegiances made during the campaign period, whether it be to business, the cycling crowd, the development community, housing advocates or proponents of the status quo, will impact the next term of council.
Time remains to choose those amenable to the big picture and betterment of the community at large.
Generalists are needed this election.
Affordable vs. attainable
Some efforts have been expended to date on the issue of affordable housing. Bantied about is the number 30%.
A family with $100,000 personal income has approximately $30,000 per annum or $2,500 per month to dedicate towards a mortgage payment. Current costs suggest an allowance should be added of at least $750 per month to deal with property taxes, utilities and a little kitty for incidentals. In generic terms, assuming an appropriate down payment puts this buyer in the market for something around $480,000. Once the math hits the page, the realization must set in that affordable and attainable are too very separate discussions. Add vehicle loans, insurance and credit card debt and the idea of home ownership slips away for many.
While our personal opinion is that interest rates stayed far too low for too long and hence the current crisis, the primary need in today’s housing market is cost effective rentals. Whether that housing forms part of a co-op or non-profit model so income-based rents can be applied, or a federal program is instituted to offer up financing options for a portion of the principal, something must be done to create attainable housing.
Waiting on the market to correct itself or throwing caution to the wind and letting developers slap up housing is not the answer. A plan is needed, but we see no plan.
Mission critical at this point is focusing on building reasonably priced rentals.
