Is the Picton Gazette’s “Great Migration” Editorial Pro-Development? The $192-Million Question It Leaves Out.

Local issues. Ontario-wide lessons. Follow County First on Facebook.

The Picton Gazette argues that Prince Edward County needs more development to stop residents from leaving. But provincial population forecasts, the County’s own housing studies and the financial risks of water infrastructure raise a different question: will new development make life more affordable, or could existing residents end up paying for growth that arrives more slowly than promised?

County First | October 2026 | Media and Municipal Accountability

Executive Summary — What Residents Should Know

Is the Gazette arguing for more development?

Yes. In its October 14, 2026 editorial, The Great Migration, the Picton Gazette’s publisher Karen Valihora argues that Prince Edward County should welcome additional residential development, particularly housing concentrated along the Wellington–Picton corridor.[1]

That is an identifiable pro-development editorial position. It is not evidence that the newspaper is acting on behalf of developers or has any undisclosed relationship with them.

Is the County actually losing residents?

The historical migration figures cited by the Gazette are substantially correct. Between 2016 and 2021, 6,240 people moved into Prince Edward County while 3,562 moved out. But those figures do not establish why every household left or whether more market-rate housing would have persuaded them to stay.[2]

Is the County pursuing a no-growth strategy?

No. In June 2026, Council adopted a 1% annual population-growth assumption for infrastructure planning. Sustained over 25 years, that would represent approximately 28% population growth, not population stagnation.[3]

Does the Province expect PEC to grow as quickly as Eastern Ontario?

No. Ontario’s Ministry of Finance projects 43% population growth for Eastern Ontario from 2025 to 2051, but only 15.7% for Prince Edward County.[4]

Will developers pay for the required infrastructure?

Developers contribute through development charges, connection charges and negotiated financing agreements. But those revenues may not cover all costs, and the timing of collection is important.

The County’s 2024 regional water proposal identified $192.4 million in infrastructure, including $150.5 million considered eligible for development-charge recovery and $41.7 million attributed to benefits for existing users.[5]

Eligible for recovery does not mean collected, guaranteed or sufficient to eliminate future financial risk.

What is the central issue?

More housing can improve affordability and strengthen local finances under the right conditions. But neither outcome follows automatically from approving more development.

The Gazette’s editorial offers a clear prescription without adequately examining housing prices, local earnings, construction forecasts or the financial consequences for taxpayers and water customers.

A Newspaper Makes the Case for Growth. But Does the Evidence Support Its Conclusion?

Prince Edward County’s housing crisis is real. Younger workers, families and people on moderate incomes face substantial obstacles finding homes they can afford. Some residents leave while others arrive with the resources to purchase increasingly expensive properties.

The Picton Gazette’s October 14 editorial identifies that demographic and economic tension in its headline, The Great Migration. It warns that the County risks becoming a community where people with substantial financial resources can move in while those with fewer resources struggle to remain.[1]

This concern deserves attention.

But the editorial moves quickly from identifying the problem to advocating a particular solution: more residential development, more homes for new families and greater accommodation of growth along the Wellington–Picton corridor.

The implicit proposition is that additional development will help existing residents remain in the County.

That proposition is possible, but it requires evidence. What homes will be built? At what prices? For which households? What infrastructure will be required? And who bears the costs if construction takes longer than expected?

These questions are central to Prince Edward County’s current debates about water, wastewater, taxation and growth.

They are largely absent from the Gazette’s editorial.

The First Problem: Eastern Ontario Is Not Prince Edward County

The Gazette cites Ontario’s projection that Eastern Ontario will grow by approximately 43% by 2051, arguing that Prince Edward County should prepare for the population increases coming to the region.

The regional figure is correct.

But it is not the Province’s forecast for PEC.

Ontario’s Ministry of Finance published updated population projections in summer 2026. Those projections anticipate a 43% increase across Eastern Ontario between 2025 and 2051. For Prince Edward County, however, the forecast is only 15.7%, the lowest among Eastern Ontario’s census divisions.[4]

Ottawa, by comparison, is projected to grow by 53.8%.

Table 1. Ontario’s population projections are not the same for every community

Geography	Projected population growth, 2025–2051
Prince Edward County	15.7%
Eastern Ontario	43.0%
Ottawa	53.8%

Source: Ontario Ministry of Finance, Ontario Population Projections, 2025–2051.[4]

The regional forecast is heavily influenced by larger population centres, especially Ottawa. It cannot simply be applied to Prince Edward County when determining how much infrastructure the municipality should build.

That matters because the cost of overestimating growth can be substantial. A municipality that constructs infrastructure for thousands of anticipated new households may have to finance that infrastructure years before those households arrive.

The Gazette is entitled to advocate for faster development. But citing regional population growth without examining PEC’s much lower provincial forecast creates an incomplete picture.

One Percent Growth Is Not No Growth

The editorial characterizes local arguments for slower growth as effectively opposing population growth.

That interpretation overlooks what Council actually decided.

In June 2026, Prince Edward County adopted a County-wide annual population-growth assumption of 1% for capital infrastructure planning. Council also directed staff to examine financing arrangements, developer prepayments and infrastructure strategies based on that assumption.[3]

The decision was informed by updated growth analysis and the financial implications of building infrastructure for faster growth than the local market might deliver.

One-percent annual growth compounds. A community growing at that rate would be approximately 28% larger after 25 years.

The difference between 1% growth and 2.4% growth is therefore not the difference between development and no development. It is a substantial difference in the expected pace of population increase and the infrastructure required to accommodate it.

The Gazette’s argument would be stronger if it addressed why the higher-growth assumptions should be preferred despite the County’s updated analysis.

What evidence suggests enough homes will be built, sold and occupied to support the required capital investment?

That is a financial question, not an ideological one.

The $192-Million Question: Who Actually Pays for Development?

The most consequential omission from the Gazette’s editorial is infrastructure financing.

Prince Edward County’s 2024 Regional Water Supply Servicing Master Plan identified an estimated $192.4 million in infrastructure investment associated with a proposed regional approach serving Wellington, Bloomfield and Picton.[5]

The municipality’s published explanation divided that estimated investment into two components.

Table 2. The County’s 2024 regional water infrastructure proposal

Component	Amount	Share
Infrastructure benefiting existing users	$41.7 million	21.7%
Infrastructure eligible for development-charge recovery	$150.5 million	78.2%
Total proposed regional infrastructure	$192.4 million	100%

Source: Prince Edward County, Future of Water Services in Prince Edward County Outlined in Master Plan, 2024.[5]

The percentages are rounded.

These are historical planning estimates, not an approved October 2026 construction budget. Subsequent growth assumptions, project designs and financing discussions may change the figures.

Nevertheless, the allocation illustrates the problem with assuming that development will pay for itself.

The County described $150.5 million as eligible for development-charge recovery. But eligibility is not the same as receiving payment. Actual recovery depends on development proceeding, charges becoming payable, applicable exemptions and the effectiveness of financing arrangements.

The $41.7 million attributed to existing-user benefits is also important. Some investment is required because existing infrastructure needs renewal or improvement, regardless of future housing construction.

It would therefore be equally misleading to argue that every dollar of infrastructure cost is caused by developers.

The relevant question is whether the full allocation of costs, revenues, debt and risks has been accurately forecast.

The Gazette’s editorial does not undertake that examination.

The Financial Warning Became More Serious in August 2026

The financial risk was not merely theoretical.

In August 2026, Prince Edward County councillors considered a proposed water and wastewater financial strategy based on the revised 1% population-growth assumption.

According to Quinte News, the proposal contemplated approximately $225 million in new borrowing between 2026 and 2036 and projected annual increases under that financial model of approximately 5.5% for water rates and 2.1% for wastewater rates.[6]

The proposal was not approved. Subsequent reconsideration also failed.

Those numbers should not be described as adopted borrowing or approved future rate increases. They were projections associated with a proposed strategy that Council declined to advance.

But they demonstrate the scale of the financial questions involved.

Table 3. What the financial documents actually establish

Figure	Meaning	Status
$192.4 million	Regional water infrastructure estimate	2024 planning estimate
$150.5 million	Portion identified as eligible for development-charge recovery	Potential recovery, not verified receipts
$225 million	New borrowing contemplated in a 2026 servicing strategy	Proposed strategy rejected
5.5% annually	Water-rate increase modelled under that strategy	Projection, not approved rate
2.1% annually	Wastewater-rate increase modelled under that strategy	Projection, not approved rate
1% annually	County population-growth assumption for infrastructure planning	Adopted June 2026

Sources: Prince Edward County and contemporaneous reports on Council proceedings.[3][5][6]

The financial issue is not whether development should occur. It is whether the municipality can afford to build infrastructure in advance of it.

If homes arrive more slowly than forecast, development-charge receipts may also arrive more slowly. Debt obligations, however, continue according to their financing terms.

Existing water and wastewater customers may therefore face financial exposure depending on the structure of the borrowing, charges, reserves and other funding sources.

This possibility must be evaluated against the countervailing risk of underinvestment, which can constrain housing supply and leave aging systems vulnerable.

Neither risk can be responsibly dismissed.

Developers Do Contribute. But That Does Not Eliminate Every Risk.

A fair analysis must acknowledge that Prince Edward County has taken steps intended to protect existing ratepayers from growth-related infrastructure costs. The municipality negotiated upfront financing arrangements involving major Wellington developments, including mechanisms for early payment of development charges and financial securities.[7]

The Province also committed $18.3 million toward the new regional water plant, helping offset part of the infrastructure cost.[8]

These measures are meaningful. Under properly structured agreements, developers can help finance infrastructure before homes are built, reducing the period during which the municipality must carry costs without receiving development-related revenues. But the existence of an agreement does not prove that every anticipated development will proceed on schedule, that all infrastructure costs will be recovered or that existing customers face no financial risk.

The timing, enforceability, amount and conditions of the agreements matter. A financially responsible development strategy should disclose anticipated development-charge receipts, payments actually received, debt obligations, security arrangements, and the consequences if construction is delayed. These are precisely the financial details a convincing pro-development editorial should examine.

The Second Problem: More Houses Are Not Necessarily Affordable Houses

The Gazette correctly identifies the lack of suitable housing as an obstacle for younger families and workers. But its editorial treats additional residential construction as though it will necessarily address that shortage.

Prince Edward County’s own 2024 Housing Plan offers an important qualification. The plan stated that approximately 4,200 housing units were projected over the following eight years, primarily consisting of market-rate single-detached homes. It specifically recognized the need to encourage affordable housing suited to local residents.[9]

This distinction matters.

A new market-rate detached house may add to the municipality’s housing supply without being affordable to a local worker or young family. Additional supply can improve affordability over time, including by reducing pressure elsewhere in the housing market. But the size of that effect depends on demand, location, housing type, construction volume and prices. It is not enough to count approvals or announced subdivisions.

The local income problem

The Prince Edward County Chamber of Commerce reports that hospitality employment increased 52% between 2019 and 2024, while average annual income in the sector was approximately $23,000.[10]

This creates a fundamental affordability challenge. A community can create hundreds of additional tourism-related jobs without necessarily creating the stable annual incomes required to purchase its new housing. Building more homes may help, especially if the construction includes smaller ownership units, attainable rentals and family-sized housing that local households can afford. But the Gazette does not establish that the developments it favours will supply those homes at attainable prices.

Table 4. The distinction that matters for residents

What developers may deliver	What affordability analysis must establish
Additional housing units	Prices and rents local households can afford
More single-detached homes	Whether smaller and family-sized alternatives are available
New residential assessment	Net municipal revenues after servicing and lifecycle costs
Construction employment	How many stable, year-round jobs remain afterward
Development-charge payments	Whether anticipated revenues actually cover eligible growth costs
More residents	Whether existing younger residents are able to remain

The County needs housing. But housing volume alone is an incomplete measure of whether development serves existing residents.

The Third Problem: The Gazette’s Migration Figures Do Not Prove Its Explanation

The editorial cites a substantial movement of residents into and out of Prince Edward County during the decade preceding the 2021 Census. The County Foundation’s Vital Signs data support much of that account.

Table 5. Prince Edward County migration

Period	Moved into PEC	Moved out of PEC	Net migration
2011–2016	3,515	2,534	+981
2016–2021	6,240	3,562	+2,678
Combined	9,755	6,096	+3,659

Source: The County Foundation, Vital Signs population and migration data.[2]

The figures confirm that population turnover is significant. They do not establish that every person leaving was priced out of the community. People relocate for employment, education, family responsibilities, retirement and numerous other reasons. Housing affordability can be an important factor, but identifying its contribution requires more detailed migration evidence.

It is reasonable for the Gazette to raise concerns about displacement. It is less reasonable to treat the out-migration figures as proof that the solution is accelerating the particular pattern of residential development it advocates. The relevant questions are more specific: who is leaving, what are their incomes, where are they moving, what housing could they afford, and would the proposed new homes have met their needs?

Without answers, the link between new construction and resident retention remains an argument rather than a demonstrated outcome.

The Fourth Problem: Growth Adds Tax Revenue, but Also Long-Term Obligations

The Gazette emphasizes that more homes and residents can produce economic activity, customers, workers and tax revenue. That is correct. But municipal finances involve both revenue and expenditure.

A new residential property contributes assessment and property taxes. It also requires roads, waste services, emergency protection, infrastructure maintenance and eventual capital replacement.

The net result depends heavily on housing density, location, existing infrastructure capacity and the costs created by development. A compact development that uses existing infrastructure may have different financial consequences from a low-density expansion requiring major new roads, pipes or facilities.

Prince Edward County’s adopted 2026 tax-supported operating budget is $87.7 million, including $56.8 million raised through taxation. Council also approved a $12.7-million water and wastewater operating budget and $6.5 million in water and wastewater capital spending.[11]

Water and wastewater services are funded through user rates, not through the general property-tax levy. This separation is important. More property-tax assessment does not automatically provide revenue to pay water-system debt. Those costs must be considered within the relevant financing arrangements.

The County’s approved 2026 municipal tax-rate increase was 3.56%. That is an actual adopted measure, unlike the projected future water-rate increases associated with the rejected August servicing strategy.[11]

Both existing infrastructure renewal and additional development can affect future financial requirements. What cannot be assumed is that more development will automatically lower taxes or water bills.

There Is Another Cost: Development Charges Can Make New Homes More Expensive

One of the ironies of the growth debate is that the mechanisms designed to protect existing taxpayers can also affect housing affordability. Municipalities collect development charges to recover eligible infrastructure costs associated with new construction.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s December 2025 research found that development charges can be passed through to purchasers and renters, particularly in strong markets. Its analysis also recognized that reducing those charges may improve project feasibility but leaves municipalities needing alternative ways to finance infrastructure.[12]

This is a genuine trade-off. Requiring developers to pay more can protect existing residents from some financial costs while increasing the cost of building new homes. Reducing development charges can improve affordability or enable construction in some cases, but may shift infrastructure costs to taxes, user rates or other funding sources.

Neither option automatically produces a net benefit. For Prince Edward County, the challenge is to design financing arrangements that support the right housing without imposing disproportionate costs on existing households. The Gazette’s editorial does not address this dilemma.

Is the Gazette’s Editorial Pro-Developer?

The editorial is plainly supportive of additional residential development. It calls for welcoming developers and creating more housing along the established settlement corridor. That is a legitimate editorial position, just as arguing for slower growth or more stringent infrastructure financing would be legitimate.

However, the distinction between advocating development and advocating the interests of particular developers is important. County First has found no evidence in the materials reviewed establishing that the editorial was commissioned, paid for, directed or coordinated by any developer or development organization.

It would therefore be inappropriate to describe it as an undisclosed lobbying effort. The more defensible criticism is editorial rather than personal.

The Gazette adopts a pro-development conclusion while giving comparatively little attention to evidence that could complicate its preferred policy: lower local population projections, the risks of infrastructure financing, the predominance of market-rate single-detached homes in earlier development forecasts, and the difference between local earnings and housing costs.

In that sense, the editorial presents a strong case for a particular outcome without demonstrating that the outcome will solve the problem it identifies. That is the argument County First is challenging.

What Would a More Credible Development Strategy Look Like?

There is no need to choose between welcoming new residents and protecting existing ones. A credible strategy would establish what kinds of homes are needed, how many can realistically be delivered, what those homes would cost and how infrastructure would be financed.

It would also test the consequences of different growth rates instead of assuming either that rapid development is always beneficial or that slower development eliminates infrastructure obligations. The necessary measures are readily identifiable.

Table 6. Six tests for a financially responsible growth strategy

Test	Evidence residents should receive
Affordability	Expected prices and rents for proposed housing, compared with local household incomes
Growth realism	Annual completed housing units compared with forecasts
Infrastructure financing	Development-charge receipts, grants, debt, and taxpayer or ratepayer contributions
Financial risk	What happens if construction is delayed by five or ten years
Long-term cost	Operating, maintenance and eventual replacement costs
Resident retention	Changes in migration, especially among working-age people and young families

Development should be assessed according to its demonstrable benefits and costs.

The appropriate pace may differ between existing serviced areas, rural communities and locations requiring major new infrastructure.

The objective should be housing and economic development that improves local affordability while preserving sustainable municipal finances.

One Town. One Lesson.

The Gazette raises an important concern: Prince Edward County risks becoming increasingly unaffordable for the people who have traditionally lived and worked here. But its proposed solution requires far more scrutiny than the editorial provides.

Ontario’s own population forecast for PEC is substantially lower than its forecast for Eastern Ontario as a whole. Council’s adopted 1% growth assumption represents meaningful expansion rather than no growth. The County’s previous regional water plan involved nearly $200 million in estimated infrastructure, and a more recent proposed financing strategy raised serious questions about debt and future water rates.

Meanwhile, the County’s housing documents have acknowledged that much of the earlier projected construction was market-rate single-detached housing, not necessarily the affordable rental and ownership supply needed by existing workers and families. These facts do not establish that development should stop. They demonstrate why the type, timing and financing of development matter.

The question for Prince Edward County is not whether developers should be welcomed or rejected. It is whether the public can see credible evidence that proposed development will improve affordability, support stable employment and generate sufficient revenues to meet its long-term costs.

If the Gazette believes more development will keep residents from leaving, that is a proposition worth testing. The public deserves more than a promise that growth will solve the problem. It deserves the numbers. Especially from a publication that receives Federal Government funding.

Footnotes and Primary Sources

[1] Karen Valihora, The Great Migration, The Picton Gazette, October 14, 2026. Editorial discussing migration, housing affordability, population growth and support for additional residential development in Prince Edward County.
https://www.pictongazette.ca/post/the-great-migration

[2] The County Foundation, Vital Signs — Population and Migration. Reports population growth and migration for Prince Edward County, including arrivals and departures during 2011–2016 and 2016–2021.
https://vitalsigns.thecountyfoundation.ca/data/post/population

[3] Prince Edward County, Council and Committee of the Whole Highlights — June 23 and 25, 2026. Confirms Council’s adoption of a 1% annual population-growth assumption for capital infrastructure planning.
https://www.thecounty.ca/county_news_notices/council-and-committee-highlights-june-23-25/

[4] Ontario Ministry of Finance, Ontario Population Projections, 2025–2051, released summer 2026. Provincial, regional and census-division forecasts, including 43% Eastern Ontario growth and 15.7% Prince Edward County growth.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-population-projections

[5] Prince Edward County, Future of Water Services in Prince Edward County Outlined in Master Plan, 2024. Describes the $192.4-million regional infrastructure estimate and allocation between existing-user benefits and potential development-charge recovery.
https://www.thecounty.ca/county_news_notices/future-of-water-services-in-prince-edward-county-outlined-in-master-plan/

[6] Alan-Michael Steele, County Rejects Water and Wastewater Strategy, Quinte News, August 27, 2026. Reports the proposed borrowing and rate increases under the financial strategy Council rejected.
https://www.quintenews.com/2026/08/27/county-rejects-water-and-wastewater-strategy/

[7] Prince Edward County, Managing Growth and Development. Explains upfront development financing agreements, prepayments, debt servicing and financial securities intended to protect ratepayers.
https://www.thecounty.ca/managing-growth-and-development/

[8] Prince Edward County, County of Prince Edward Attracts $18.3 Million from Province for New Regional Water Plant, 2024. Describes provincial funding, developer contributions and the proposed infrastructure financing model.
https://www.thecounty.ca/county_news_notices/county-of-prince-edward-attracts-18-3-million-from-province-for-new-regional-water-plant/

[9] Prince Edward County, 2024 County Housing Plan Update, June 2024, p. 19. Identifies earlier projected housing construction as primarily market-rate single-detached homes and outlines measures to support affordable housing.
https://www.thecounty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-County-Housing-Plan-Update.pdf

[10] Prince Edward County Chamber of Commerce, Seasons of Opportunity — Four-Season Visitor Economy Strategy. Reports growth in hospitality employment, average annual income and the challenge of seasonal work.
https://www.pecchamber.com/Seasons-of-Opportunity

[11] Prince Edward County, 2026 County Budgets Adopted, January 14, 2026. Confirms the adopted tax-supported budget, municipal tax-rate increase and water/wastewater budget figures.
https://www.thecounty.ca/county_news_notices/2026-county-budgets-adopted/

[12] Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Development Charges: Who Bears the Cost?, December 4, 2025. Research on how infrastructure charges affect home prices and the trade-offs between development financing and municipal taxation.
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/housing-markets-data-and-research/housing-research/research-reports/accelerate-supply/development-charges-who-bears-cost

Editorial and Legal Notice

This article is an independent analysis of a published newspaper editorial and matters of public interest involving housing affordability, municipal population projections and infrastructure financing.

The Gazette’s editorial views are distinguished from the factual claims and conclusions examined by County First. Describing its position as pro-development is an assessment of the policy arguments it advances, not an allegation of undisclosed influence, lobbying, improper conduct or financial relationships.

The financial figures discussed include historical planning estimates, potentially recoverable development charges, adopted budgets and projections under a rejected financing strategy. They should not be interpreted as equivalent to approved expenditures or actual payments.

County First does not conclude that development necessarily raises taxes or utility rates, nor that new construction cannot improve housing affordability. Actual outcomes depend on development patterns, market conditions, financing arrangements and public policy.

County First welcomes factual corrections, additional financial records and substantive responses from parties whose public positions are discussed.