Woolwiich Township Needs a Higher and Stronger Protective Wall


I was pleasantly shocked at the recent Woolwich Township council meeting, where a decision was made to roll out the welcome mat for a casino, pending numerous conditions and receiving a green light from OLG.  In an earlier post, I had commented that I had looked forward to the ‘entertainment’ factor of these meetings as I am fascinated by some of the public speeches and presentations.  I was definitely not disappointed, however, there was one speech that didn’t really entertain me – it insulted me.  And the author and presenter of that speech was the Chair of the Region of Waterloo, Ken Seiling.

Mr. Seiling made it clear that he was speaking as a citizen of Woolwich Township, not as the Chair of Waterloo Region but I can’t imagine that the personal opinions that he provided on the Woolwich casino issue are much different than in his position of Regional Chair.  Mr. Seiling stated that many of Woolwich residents had “commonly-held principles” and that these principles were “built in our DNA” and “a part of our roots”.  His speech went on to convey that he didn’t think that a casino fit with those commonly-held beliefs and that “Woolwich should not be bought” by the casino proposal and Woolwich should not be a partner in this project.  He concluded by advising the voting councilors that approving this casino would make this their legacy for the township.

So if I disagree with Mr. Seiling, is he saying that my ‘roots’, being different than his roots, are for sale?  And can this be translated to say that my values are for sale?  I felt somewhat insulted by this and wondered if others perceived his comments in a similar manner.  Well, it didn’t take long before I got an answer to that as another resident, Richard Bradley, got up and said that he felt that there was a ‘prejudice’ evident in the comments made toward individuals who went to a casino or toward those folks that were in favour of the casino.  He elaborated, in a humourous way, that he wasn’t a gambler, nor was he a theatre-goer, or even a hockey fan but he felt that all of these activities were entertaining to the people who participated and that the money expended on tickets for the theater or a hockey game didn’t produce any monetary rewards but did provide an ‘entertainment’ reward – much as some people receive when they put money into a slot machine or spend it on a gambling activity.   It’s their entertainment.

I’m afraid that Mr. Seiling’s comments are sounding like someone who isn’t keeping up with the growth and changes of his own township.  The ‘commonly-held principles to which he refers may be changing as new families with different ‘DNA’ and different ‘roots’ move into the township and the Region.  To my knowledge, there is no ‘application  process’ whereby someone wanting to move to the township has to demonstrate that they share Mr. Seiling’s ‘commonly-held principles’ and I’m thankful for that.  Get with the program Mr. Seiling.  Woolwich is more than Old Order Mennonites and more than religion and the principles that are associated with traditional religions.  There might even be an atheist, an agnostic, an ex-convict, or someone who gambles and drinks, or maybe someone who masturbates and heaven forbid, someone who is a homosexual and has children going to the schools of Woolwich Township.  However will we deal with that?  Guess we need to make that wall around Woolwich a little taller and stronger to keep those people out that don’t have our ‘commonly-held principles’.   Maybe the Region can use their portion of the casino money to take care of the improvements on that wall.



Filed under Agriculture, Business

2 responses to “Woolwiich Township Needs a Higher and Stronger Protective Wall

  1. I agree that any population involves significant diversity. This is one of the best aspects of our Canadian heritage is that we all come from somewhere else and we have different goals, traditions and characteristics. I can understand what Mr. Seiling is trying to say he may have gone about it in the wrong way.

    I oppose the casino project from an economic point of view. I see a false sense of security when we become dependent up on income source that we have very little control of. If Woolwich builds this casino and begins to enjoy the revenue what happens when we start to build budgets based on it. Then the government changes the rules and we have a problem. We dont have to look any farther than Elora to realise this is possible. I prefer developments that are more in our control.

    The old raceway lands in Elmira are now filled with individual homes that pay taxes and hopefully support Elmira based business. I believe this is more sustainable.

    For more of my thoughts you can take a look at noWRcasino.com

    Great post.

  2. Sorry for the repost of some of my earlier points I didn’t think the first one worked properly. (RE: Responses to Will Woolwich Township Choose Values over Business Sense Again?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s