To the Editor,
Below is a letter sent to all members of council and the clerk of Saugeen Shores;Subject: A matter of great importance for the council meeting October 11th, 2022
————————————
Dear Saugeen Shores Clerk, Mayor & Members of Council;
In February 2019 the town of Saugeen Shores put out a Public Request for Proposal (RFP) which included specific guidelines related to the length of time a lease would be allowed for. (Purposely, this did not include terms of 21-50 years).
Council was (and is) aware any land they sell (or sign a lease for 21 + years) must be land that is previously publicly declared surplus to the town.
Despite getting an RFP for a lease to include a MORE than a 20 year term, the town neglected to consider they could not accept this proposal as it did not meet the criteria of the RFP, related to the length of term.
The town was in a position to sign a lease under 21 years, but nothing over this time frame. The applicant would also be aware they had no right to sign a lease for over 21 years either, as the land was not available for that term. Despite this, the town signed a lease agreement that is flawed by the terms of length. The public was not informed by the terms of the RFP of the possibility of a length of term beyond 20 years.
The process of declaring public land “surplus” is not just a matter of formality to allow a longer lease. The public has a right to comment and give input on any town owned properties that the “council of the day” may decide to declare surplus. Over the past 3 plus years many delegations to council, letters to editors, and individuals representing public groups have spoken up and out about the importance of this particular Open Space beachfront land to its residents, and tourism and how valuable it was to everyone and how important it is to keep it in public use. You have received much negative feedback about length of lease from the public.
This O-S land does not meet the description of “surplus”, on so many levels. Leasing this land for 10 or 20 years is definitely an option. If the developers are successful at meeting the objectives, the town will renew leases going forward. The investment is safe if their plan is solid, after all we are talking about beachfront property being leased at under market value.
It is of the utmost importance that councillors accept that if they vote “yes” to declare priceless beachfront surplus, this is NOT in the best interests of the future of Saugeen Shores and they need to fully understand the precedence they are setting by doing so.The error was made, signing a 50 year lease when you had the legal right to sign only for a term less than 21 years. Declaring this publicly valued land “surplus” now does not “fix” that mistake.
The public RFP Document did NOT inform the public of this opportunity of signing for longer and therefore the RFP process was flawed as well.
What we have at hand is a notice to declare a large part of the Port Elgin beachfront, “Surplus” land. Listen to the public and do not follow through, do not be that council who makes this mistake and declares a large portion of the beachfront surplus! This land is not “surplus” to the town of Saugeen Shores.(I ask that you acknowledge receipt of this letter to you and also ask that you reply to my concerns please.)
Lynn Thede
Port Elgin
