It has been with an increasing amount of concern that we have observed the continuing debate about the Grey County Growth Management Study.

The issue came up again over the past week at several local council meetings and at the Grey County council meeting held on March 4.

The Growth Management Study is an expensive ($40,000 has been spent on it) exercise that is part of the county's five-year review of its Official Plan. The name of the study says it all: it's about managing growth.

It is the document the county intends to use over the next several years to plan for, manage and coordinate growth in our region.

You would think a document of that importance that county councilors would want to get it right.

However, logic and planning have rarely been used in the same sentence when it comes to planning matters at the county level.

County representatives from several municipalities including Meaford, The Blue Mountains, Owen Sound and Hanover have raised serious concerns about the growth numbers and projections in the study.

So far, from we have seen, their concerns are genuine and legitimate.

Consider these numbers.

The study concludes that from 2021-2031 there will be absolutely no employment growth in all of Grey County. Zero. Does that make sense?

The study completely ignores development it considers "seasonal" in nature. The Blue Mountains Mayor Ellen Anderson said at the March 4 meeting if "seasonal growth" was included in the study, projected development growth in the county would double. Does not including that type of development make sense?

The study says the Municipality of Meaford can expect 40 units of seasonal growth over the next several years. Incredulous Meaford Deputy Mayor Francis Richardson said that his municipality has already approved development that goes far beyond the county's number.

Anticipated development in Meaford has been so intense in recent years that the council there has begun an expensive process to expand and upgrade its sewage treatment capabilities in order to meet development demands. Does the county's 40 units number make sense?

What concerns us the most about this study is the county's consultant insisting that "seasonal" development be left out of the document.

We must ask: why? In our opinion development is development. Development doesn't require labels or fancy names. If the county wants to plan for growth, it needs to plan for all growth. Interestingly enough, the consultant was asked at the March 4 meeting how "seasonal" development has been defined in the study.

The answer was confusing and unclear. A reporter from this publication asked various county councilors what made development "seasonal." The general consensus concluded that a "seasonal" development is a home where the owner maintains another address elsewhere.

From that definition, a development only becomes "seasonal" after it is completed and occupied. If we were to follow the county's definition of "seasonal" development, then every proposed development would be "seasonal." After all, everybody planning to build a home, or a subdivision development or a condominium complex has an address elsewhere.

We question why every member of county council hasn't wondered about the numbers in this study.

If councillors from several municipalities are saying - "the numbers in this study are wrong, we expect a lot more growth than what is projected" - shouldn't the response be: "we'd better fix that."

That, to this point, has not been the case. Numerous county councillors want to plow ahead with the report - despite the flaws pointed out by their colleagues. For weeks politicians and planners from various municipalities have been saying: "the numbers in the study aren't right, we need to fix them."

The response they have received has ranged from: "so what, it's just a projection that might be wrong" to "why are you trying to delay this report that so much work has been put into?"

This baffles us. No projection is ever perfect, but it should be accurate based on the most current available information. This study is clearly lacking.

If the county is going to plan for future growth, shouldn't the first goal be to get it right?