|
The
decision of the Chamber of Commerce not to undertake Cobourg's tourism
activities next year is the result of much more than just a late deadline
of a report that suggests who should deliver the tourism services. As a
background to this you should understand how the Chamber got into the tourism
efforts in the first place. Some years ago the Dressler House, was going
through a transition from a successful restaurant into something else when
the house was burnt out. Townspeople couldn't stand the idea of an historic
dwelling being demolished and the thought of not rebuilding was not even
considered. A successful local fundraising was established, probably Bill
Patchett's first, and the place was rebuilt. However the in order to rebuild
it ownership had to be stabilized. The Town guaranteed the mortgage, and
assumed ownership, and the Chamber of Commerce became a tenant and coincidentally
the amount of rent charged was the mortgage rate. In order to justify the
raise and the municipal subsidy the amount of money the Town granted to
the Chamber jumped by the cost of the mortgage. But, the council of the
day demanded a quid pro quo: a tourism contract was established and the
Chamber was officially in the tourism business.
The Chamber
of Commerce has gradually increased the amount of tourism activities: selling
advertising in the previously
successful
County brochure, employing several students each summer, manning the Boat
Show booth, conducting public tours around the Marie Dressler memorabilia,
sitting on the perennial round of studies and committees dedicated to boosting
the industry. However a threat to this state of affairs was looming.
For the last three mayoralty election campaigns the mantra of "I intend to boost economic development" has been uttered by every successful candidate. But words have not matched actions and the Economic Development department has not appeared to be successful as few results have been achieved compared to the amount of money poured into the department. Enter the move to assume tourism, as the results of tourism boosterism are far more apparent. Also on paper it makes sense to combine two administrations, if you are a bean-counter! If you were a mayor who is keen on efficiency and hung up on process, and you have two similar departments doing similar things what would you do?
So we have a moribund economic development department, a Mayor obsessed by process and a successful tourism initiative being run by an outside agency. Put it all together and the result is the economic development department become Town staff, with expensive benefits, and results have to be produced. Suggestion: grab the tourism and put it in with economic development. After all wasn't the only recent achievement of this department the "Ranka" affair. Ranka was a carpetbagging company looking to buy a factory. Dangling the prospect of 1200 jobs before the Town, it was announced a week before the last Election Day that a deal had been consummated. The Mayor looked good and was re-elected. However some six months later the whole house of cards collapsed and Ranka slunk away.
What has
this to do with the tourism contract? Unnamed sources hint to me that the
moving of the tourism work from the
Chamber
to Economic Development was a payoff for the work done with Ranka and the
subsequent mayoralty win.
Why would that be? The answer is simple……..In a world driven by personalities, and in the absence of a credible explanation by the Mayor, I guess it was easy for the Mayor to pick sides when the manager of the Chamber is married to your last mayoralty opponent.
A
Family affair!