Steve Clarke’s Email and John Tait’s Reply: Landowner Questions
Steve Clarke’s email
Received October 3, 2026, at 8:23 p.m. EDT | Subject: Response
Good evening, John:
I’m just now catching up on emails and messages to my campaign email account. Unfortunately we launched our campaign late in the process.
Thank you for your detailed request for information.
As a candidate for mayor in an urban city like Orillia, our Council is not frequently challenged by the issues you raise. I will say that during the next term of Council the city’s boundary expansion will occur and bring two blocks of what is now rural land into the city. These lands as you may know are needed for future employment and residential use. I believe that current city land use planning policies and practices are transparent with respect to impact of development on private land owners. They are however land use planning policies and practices for urban development. Our recent experience with the development surrounding Silver Creek demonstrates that these policies and practices need to be reviewed and strengthened as they affect our natural habitats. This review and updating also will be beneficial as the city plans for the development of the new boundary expansion lands. As mayor, I will ensure Council reviews and updates our planning policies and practices in this regard.
Again thank you for your request for information. If there is some specific aspect of what Orillia is doing or planning to do that I can clarify, please don’t hesitate to let me know.
Steve
John Tait’s reply
Good evening, Steve:
Thank you for responding.
First, did you review WatershedDebacle.ca and the landowner information I circulated? Please confirm which materials you reviewed so that we can address any information gaps.
Your response discusses boundary expansion, urban development and strengthening habitat protection. It does not address the central concerns I raised: restrictions on individual private parcels, potential losses in property value and permitted use, meaningful notification, and responsibility for those losses.
You mention bringing rural lands into Orillia. That makes these questions directly relevant to the planning work you describe. Reviewing environmental protections should also involve examining the consequences for the people who own the affected land.
You invited specific questions. Here they are:
1. Notification: Will you support direct, plain-language notice explaining proposed restrictions and their potential consequences to each affected landowner, with an opportunity to respond before decisions are made?
2. Private-parcel assessment: Has Orillia undertaken or commissioned analysis of how existing or proposed restrictions affect individual properties’ permitted uses and market values? If so, who conducted it, what method was used, and where can owners obtain it?
3. Compensation: Will you support examining whether compensation is owed where restrictions cause losses, how any compensable loss should be calculated, and who would pay?
4. Access to information: Will you support affected owners receiving neutral information about our inquiry and an opportunity to ask questions and obtain independent advice?
For background on the Severn concerns, please contact Mayor Mike Burkett, Mark Taylor and Julie Cayley at the Severn Sound Environmental Association. I have raised these matters with them and would welcome your seeking their responses directly.
A general assurance of transparency leaves these practical questions unanswered. Landowners need to know what changes on their property, how the consequences are assessed, and what remedies are available.
Please respond to each question and identify any supporting records. Where no assessment or policy exists, please say so plainly.
Regards,
John Tait
Watershed Debacle Inquiry
Comments