Strategic Land Acquisition Without Strategy

Report on Council Meeting of October 8, 2025

A significant moment during the council meeting was a presentation by a resident, who requested clarification from the municipality regarding two recent land purchases. Specifically, the resident asked for the reasoning behind the acquisition of the Hartz Point property for $1.46 million, as well as the purchase of two parcels of land located south of the 103.

In response, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the Municipality of Shelburne District provided an explanation. The CAO’s remarks can be accessed for viewing and listening at the following link: https://youtu.be/2gCZ9DYzcuI 

Essentially the CAO is stating that Hartz Point and the land south of the 103 were purchased without a plan.  The municipality has spent over $1.5 million to buy land and they have no plan.  No cost/benefit analysis, no worse case scenario planning nothing no exit plan.  But they have hired a consulting firm for $65,000 to tell them what to do with the land.

The following in point form is my criticisms of the CAO’s statements:

• The CAO admits there was “no cost benefit analysis” and “no specific business in mind” for the property.
• Strategic land acquisition is framed as a tool for economic development, yet Hartz Point was purchased without a defined purpose, feasibility study, or projected outcomes.
• This undermines the credibility of calling it “strategic”—it was speculative, not strategic.

• Surveys, studies, and consulting are only being initiated after the purchase.
• The committee tasked with identifying potential uses was created post-acquisition.
• This sequence suggests the municipality acted before understanding the land’s constraints, opportunities, or community needs.

• The CAO defends the lack of public consultation by citing the risk of losing the property to private buyers.
• While urgency may justify discretion, it also bypasses democratic norms—especially when public funds are involved.
• The logic implies that transparency is incompatible with strategic action, which is a troubling precedent that does not bode well for future.

• Public input is routed through a committee formed after the fact, with limited clarity on its mandate or authority.
• Residents are told they can “talk to committee members” or “write in,” but there’s no structured process for gathering, publishing, or responding to community feedback.
• The CAO equates committee membership with public consultation, which dilutes the meaning of inclusive engagement.

• The CAO says, “If we put it on MLS tomorrow, we’d get that money back, plus more.” That’s a real estate metric, not an economic development one.
• There’s no mention of job creation targets, environmental impact assessments, or long-term community benefits.
• The investment is framed as valuable because of its resale potential—not because of its civic or economic utility.

Additional Concerns

• Risk of Gentrification or Exclusive Development: The fear of a mansion being built is used to justify secrecy, but there’s no guarantee that future development won’t similarly exclude or marginalize local residents.
• Overreliance on Comparisons: References to Burnside, Dartmouth Crossing, and Exit 12 are used to validate the approach, but those projects had clear planning frameworks and developer commitments, none of which exist yet for Hartz Point.

This isn’t just a planning flaw—it’s a governance flaw. The absence of a proactive, transparent, and community-driven process weakens public trust and risks turning a potentially transformative asset into a missed opportunity.