Village A: 458 new houses on a 5-acre park in the works at Base31
- Publication: The Picton Gazette
- Article: Village A: 458 new houses on a 5-acre park in the works at Base31
- Date and reference #: July 23, 2025, Volume 195 No. 29
- Link to article: https://www.pictongazette.ca/post/village-a-2 (PDF)
Strategic Subtext and Editorial Framing
1. Presenting the Project as a Done Deal (Despite No Servicing Plan or Draft Approval)
The Gazette article:
- Refers to Base31 as PEC Community Partners’ “first major housing development” — implying inevitability and a pre-approved mandate.
- Describes detailed road names, street connections, parks, and architectural vision, giving the impression of finality — even though: There is no approved servicing plan and no development permit at this stage.
This presentation creates public and political pressure to “solve the water issue” for Base31, rather than questioning whether such a large-scale project is even appropriate in a municipality with constrained infrastructure.
2. Glossing Over the Water Crisis
There’s only one paragraph acknowledging that the development has no water solution yet:
“There isn’t a single solution… but it is something the County is aware of…”
That vague phrase downplays the severity of Prince Edward County’s acknowledged water system limitations — especially in Picton and Bloomfield — where current infrastructure cannot support even modest new growth without $100M+ in upgrades.
The reality: Base31 does not have water capacity secured. Yet the article:
- Avoids discussing the cost burden or delay that could arise
- Frames the lack of servicing as a temporary challenge, not a development-breaking constraint
3. Preemptive Language to Shift Financial Risk to the Municipality
Mr. Marchese’s quote about being willing to “work together in some sort of funding agreement” is notable. It introduces a future narrative where:
- PEC might front the infrastructure investment (e.g. pipes, roads, plant expansion)
- Development Charges may reimburse the cost “if the market is there”
This is not a binding commitment — it’s a soft suggestion.
Yet the Gazette’s neutral tone allows this to pass without scrutiny, even though County staff and councillors have warned about the risks of doing infrastructure work without firm development timelines or guarantees.
4. “Greenwashing” the Project With Parks and Ponds
The lede emphasizes a new 5-acre park and “naturalized stormwater pond,” which:
- Distracts from the environmental risk of high-density development on previously industrial land
- Masks the fact that the stormwater pond is a regulatory necessity, not a community bonus
The pond is not purely aesthetic — it’s part of engineered stormwater management, and should be evaluated for chemical runoff from former industrial use.
Yet no mention is made of brownfield risk, even though MZO-zoned industrial land may require environmental remediation.
5. Omission of Development Permit Status and Planning Approvals
The article fails to mention:
- No formal development permit has been issued
- The project is being pursued under an MZO (Minister’s Zoning Order) — a controversial provincial override that bypasses local planning rules
- The County’s Master Servicing Plan isn’t complete, meaning no approved phasing or funding approach
This omission misleads readers into assuming the project has already cleared major hurdles, when in reality, many approvals are still pending or incomplete.
6. Setting the Stage for Cost-Sharing Arguments
By quoting councillors who worry about “bridging” the infrastructure costs before development fees arrive, the article sets up:
- A public justification for raising taxes or debt to fund infrastructure
- A narrative where any delay is seen as council inefficiency — not developer risk avoidance
What’s Missing
- No discussion of how Base31 ties into the $300M Wellington water plant proposal (even though it’s likely tied to long-term servicing needs)
- No evaluation of how many projects are currently competing for the same limited water capacity
- No performance comparison of the Picton plant vs. proposed alternatives
- No mention of the environmental assessment process (or lack thereof under MZO)
Key Takeaway
The Gazette article creates a perception of inevitability, presenting Base31’s Village A as shovel-ready and community-oriented — while minimizing unresolved water issues, legal approvals, and infrastructure financing risks.
It reads more like a developer communications brief than an independent piece of journalism.