Rebuttal to Recent Correspondence on Strong Mayor Powers and Public SafetyMr. Larmer and Mayor Cleveland,
I am submitting this letter in response to recent correspondence from Teresa Rickersby, Bob LeDrew, Jenni Frenke, and Dave Glover, which I ask be included in the public record.
While these individuals may be active and prolific letter writers, their views do not represent the majority of Cobourg residents. They speak loudly but for a narrow faction — one that too often uses drug addiction, disruption, and fear as political weapons in their ongoing campaign against Mayor Cleveland and any effort to restore order or move Cobourg forward.
The Mayor acted within his full authority under Ontario’s legislation specifically enacted to accelerate housing development, streamline municipal bureaucracy, and empower mayors to lead. The directives issued on July 11 were not approvals; they were lawful instructions to staff to prepare reports and explore strategies — precisely the kind of proactive governance our community has long needed, especially for underutilized lands like the Tannery site.
Ms. Rickersby and Mr. LeDrew claim to support affordable housing, yet object to every step that would bring more housing closer. They resist direction, land planning, development proposals, and even discussion if it originates from the Mayor. Mr. LeDrew even questions whether Cobourg needs more housing at all — a remarkable position in the middle of a national housing crisis.
Their arguments are not based on principle — they are based on personal animus toward the Mayor.
Likewise, Jenni Frenke’s recent letter weaponizes a bylaw enforcement incident to suggest unjust treatment, when in fact the issue was clear: individuals were asked to comply with park rules and refused. Cobourg residents know what’s happening in our public spaces. We’ve witnessed the drug use, encampments, fires, and intimidation. The letter from Ms. Frenke attempts to paint this as innocent hammock use — that’s not just dishonest, it’s insulting to the lived experiences of law-abiding citizens who no longer feel safe using their own parks.
And as for Mr. Glover — his letter reads like a campaign ad for dysfunction. He ignores that social service housing is a County responsibility. He ignores the disastrous outcomes we’ve seen at Transition House. He ignores that many units given to drug users have been vandalized. And most importantly, he ignores the powerful, united voice that came through loud and clear at the recent Town Hall meeting: Cobourg residents are fed up.
That meeting proved what most of us already knew — that the majority of Cobourg stands behind the Mayor. We are tired of the advocate enablers, the spin, and the obstruction. We want safety, order, and responsible leadership. We want housing — real housing — not tiny homes or low barrier shelters dressed up as community concern.
Mr. Larmer and Mayor Cleveland I urge you and Council to recognize that while Bob, Teresa, Jenni, and Dave may be persistent, they are not representative. They are the vocal minority.
The silent majority is finally starting to speak.
Sincerely,
Carol Leighton
Cobourg Resident
Below are the e-mails/correspondence Ms. Leighton is referring too
Concerning Mayor Cleveland
Hello Brent, I submit this letter to Mayor Cleveland and Council for addition to the agenda. These are my personal views, driven by concern, compassion, and a deep sense of civic responsibility.
Mayor Cleveland’s leadership is deeply troubling. It reminds me of what former MP Wayne Easter once said about Pierre Poilievre — that debating him is like playing chess with a pigeon: he knocks over all the pieces and struts as if he’s won. That’s what it feels like here in Cobourg. Instead of collaboration, we’ve seen disruption. Instead of compassion, we’ve seen cruelty disguised as governance.
Take Brookside, for example. It could have been a major step toward addressing our housing and
addiction crises. But even viable options like that have been ignored. We saw it again with 310 Division Street. The problem has never been a lack of solutions — the problem is a refusal to see the unhoused and addicted as human beings worthy of dignity and support and to accept our responsibility as citizens and as the county seat. Where is the promised collaboration?
When rooming houses and affordable housing still existed, people had shelter and desperation wasn’t visible in our streets. Now that the rooming houses and cheap apartments are just a memory, were in crisis. That alone is proof that housing works to help stabilize the vulnerable and provide a foundation for a happy healthy life. Our Mayor, seems intent on ignoring that truth. Let’s be clear: no one is “normalizing” drug use. What’s being normalized — and what should be — is human compassion.
Advocacy is not enabling. Advocacy is about keeping people alive. It’s about ensuring everyone in our community, regardless of their struggles, is treated with dignity.
I watched the Town Hall meeting and heard the same refrain repeated: this mayor has been disruptive and disappointing. People voted for change, but what we got was a harsh echo of conservative ideology — threats to close public services, undermining of staff, and a constant deflection of responsibility. It’s always someone else’s job. It’s always someone else’s fault.
Meanwhile, the rest of council seems sidelined, or simply going along to get along.
But I ask you: how many of us are just three bad months away from homelessness? How many are quietly battling their own demons, hoping the rest of us don’t turn away?
Blaming people for being poor or unhoused is not a policy. Abandoning compassion is not leadership.
We pay taxes not for punishment, but for shared support. This is not socialism — it’s the very purpose of government.
Back in 1985, Deedee Bedard camped outside Victoria Hall for almost a year to demand action on housing. That was 40 years ago. And here we are, still failing.
Cobourg has been better before, and I believe it can be again.
Unfortunately Mayor Cleveland appears to be intent on full control and just days ago has invoked his Strong Mayor Powers to have a staff report done for him and him only for final approval. It’s purpose is to create a viable housing project that won’t cost taxpayers on the Tannery lands.
Why?
This easily could have been out before the elected councillors. There has been no information provided as to why he thought use of SMP was necessary. This is an attack on democracy and for no apparent reason.
I urge you to remember what this town is capable of, and rise to that standard once more. You can be the Mayor you promised you would be. You can collaborate as promised for the better of all citizens. I encourage you to set aside your SMP in the name of democracy and to meet your commitment to transparency working with the elected councillors and the county.
Because you can.
Sincerely,
Dave Glover, concerned Cobourg resident.
Dear Mayor Cleveland and Other Members of Town Council
After reading mayor Cleveland’s statement regarding 310 Division St and the issue of homelessness in Cobourg, I am calling for his resignation.
Cleveland’s claim that 310 Division St is a “taxpayer funded criminal drug den” is appalling. Cleveland said in his statement that “we should make Cobourg as hostile a place as possible” to those he labels as criminals. His assumption that all vulnerable members of our community are criminal and drug addicts and are a threat to society is inexcusable.
Many of these residents are struggling with poverty, trauma and mental illness. Cleveland’s statement not only incites violence, but is degrading and outright dangerous.
Sadly, homelessness has become an issue in Cobourg, and yes, there is a small percentage of vulnerable members in our community who use drugs and commit criminal acts. However, it is presumptuous to assume that all homeless individuals are drug addicts and criminals. Many of the homeless people that Cleveland claims are criminals have jobs. Some homeless people are single parents trying to look after their children. Some are elderly people having been forced out of their homes because of increasing costs. Some are veterans trying integrate back into society.
Many of Cobourg’s residents are one or two paycheques away from being one of these most vulnerable because of the rising costs of living. Instead of helping our citizens find affordable homes or keeping their existing home, and providing assistance with current government programs and resources, and/or
creating new programs, Cleveland villainizes and dehumanizes them. The town of Cobourg has not been exactly friendly. It has been established that the Town of Cobourg has forced the most vulnerable of our community to go into hiding when help is what people need the most.
Premier Doug Ford introduced Bill 6, the Safer Municipalities Act, which became law in June 2025. Bill 6 impacts the fundamental rights and freedoms of our community’s most vulnerable. This bill grants police the power to clear encampments and arrest people for trespassing or public drug use.
The police have the authority to remove individuals from encampments regardless of whether they have alternative shelter. It also enables police to issue fines to homeless people, even if they cannot afford to pay them, potentially resulting in jail time.
This bill has emboldened politicians like Cleveland to further harm those people without the money or power to defend themselves, tagging them as criminals. Instead of solving the housing issue, politicians like Ford and Cleveland are spending our province’s and town’s resources to fund their own pet projects.
While factories and businesses are closing in our community and around the province, the housing problem is growing. Without addressing the root cause, the homeless crisis is only going to get worse. Homelessness isn’t about politics, it’s about lives.
We are talking about families who were once vital members of our community.
Cobourg used to be “Ontario’s Feel-Good Town” and I agree that Cobourg can be a very generous community. I believe Cleveland is misguided when he states that “this is about criminals and their actions”.
This is NOT about criminals and their actions. Under Cleveland’s leadership, he is making homelessness and being poor a crime instead of providing solutions to this growing issue. Is this how a generous
community responds to a crisis in their “Feel Good Town”?
Cleveland states that he is “proud of my advocacy on this file; to stand up for what is right…to stand up for the law-abiding citizens of Cobourg”. He is the Mayor of Cobourg, and he is supposed to stand for everyone within our community even the homeless. He is supposed to advocate and support our community, not persecute the helpless.
In the closing of Mayor Cleveland’s statement he said “I hope this is now the beginning of a new era, where the rights of those who live within the rule of law take precedence over those who do not”. According to his statement, Cleveland implies that the poor and homeless have no rights, in essence are not his constituents, are not citizens of Cobourg, are not people.
When did Canada’s laws change to only those who have homes and money have rights? Have we turned
back the clock and are living in a different century? Cobourg needs a mayor that respects all residents and has compassion for those who are most vulnerable.
Our community needs programs and housing that are truly affordable. We need ALL levels of governments to fix the problem, not sweep it under the rug.
Being poor isn’t a crime, but politicians like Premier Ford and Mayor Cleveland are making it criminal.
The Town of Cobourg deserves better than Mayor Cleveland.
Dan Tobin
Dear Cobourg Council,
Please include this in your next public agenda as correspondence.
Please remove my personal contact info but you may use my name. Today (July 15, 2025 at approximately noon) I was in Victoria park when bylaw and police were removing people experiencing homelessness from the park.
They were clearing approx. 7 people in multiple locations.
I believe the bylaw officers name was Kevin Feagan.
I didn’t catch the police officers name.
One person was being cleared for having a hammock up. Which she took down but was told she still had to leave or she would be given a trespass order from all parks in Cobourg for the summer.
Is this consistent with your parks bylaw? A hammock is not an enclosed structure. It is open at the top – much like a sun shelter. It is not enclosed or permanent. It’s not a tent.
Section 18.0 of the bylaw reads:
TENTS, SUN SHELTERS AND STRUCTURES
“18.1 No person shall place, install, or erect any permanent enclosed tent or structure in any park, unless granted under a Special Event Permit.
18.2 While in a park, no person shall use a temporary sun shelter unless the interior of the shelter is open to view and is in the opinion of the Enforcement Officer not in contravention of this section.”
A hammock is “open to view” at the top. It is not permenant. So I find it odd people are being asked to move from the park when they are using a hammock.
The other people being cleared had belongings and wagons and were sitting on picnic blankets. No structures, no hammocks. No public drug use. They were quiet- obviously tired and sitting in one spot.
They were not causing a nuisance.
They were in the park during day time hours when the park is open for public use.
These folks were also given trespassing orders by bylaw.
Verbally, I didn’t see anything written up.
Why they were given trespassing orders was very confusing to all of us….
I had a very respectful conversation with Mr. Feagan. I asked him what part of the bylaw doesn’t allow people to sit in the park on a blanket?
I asked him if I was sitting on a blanket in the park with a wagon and my kids would I be asked to leave?
And he said “no, of course not, you can sit in the park. That would be fine”
I then asked him again. “What part of the bylaw are these people breaking then? Why are you asking them to leave?”
He said because they have belongings (they had a couple of grocery bags near the blanket and a wagon) and “I told them to leave so they must leave because of the bylaw”.
I reminded him that if I was in the park with my kids I would also have belongings with me. And he had responded that I would be able stay and enjoy the park.
I am concerned that this is a serious human rights infringement- these folks were doing nothing wrong and they have every right to take up space in a park. I can’t find anywhere in the bylaw that doesn’t allow
sitting on the grass.
I also want to bring up here Section 17.2 that was passed on August 21, 2023.
“Where the Northumberland County CAO, being ultimately responsible for Social Services as the Service Manager for the Town of Cobourg in consultation with the Town of Cobourg, is satisfied that the number of locally available shelter beds is less than the number of individuals in need of shelter, the Northumberland County CAO may permit such individuals to erect and be within temporary structures, on municipal lands without a permit otherwise required by this By-law for such time and subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Northumberland County CAO may from time to time establish.”
310 is no longer accessible to many people because it is high barrier. As well there’s not enough beds for everyone experiencing homelessness.
Does this mean that the Town of Cobourg needs to reconsider their encampment policies to be consistent with the Waterloo Ruling, Charter 7 and 17.2 of the parks bylaw?
Please respond to me and the public and advise how both of the above issues will be handled.
I also wanted to ask a question about bylaw and police enforcement in terms of loitering and using public space.
At the DBIA meeting on July 10th the Deputy of Police spoke about the Cobourg Safer Streets program.
Around the 1 hour mark of the meeting one board member asked the Deputy about loitering and who gets to sit on a bench and who doesn’t in this town?
He responded:
“All of our spaces are open to any residents so we don’t go and move people along just because they’ve been sitting too long. “
So I am wondering why bylaw has one tactic and message but the police have another in terms of who is welcome to take up space in this community? Who makes the overriding enforcement decisions in this town?
The police or bylaw?
If people have nowhere to go they will be outside in the parks. They need shelter, services, support, health care and housing or they will continue to be outside.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jenni Frenke
Strong Mayor Directives of July 11
Dear Mayor Cleveland:
I am writing to object most strongly to your two recent uses of strong mayor powers to have town
staff:
1. prepare a report for Council to be presented at the September Regular Council Meeting outlining ten (10) to twenty (20) policy, financial, procedural opportunities that Council can consider and implement to make building of homes in Cobourg less costly, more effective and more efficient.
2. investigate opportunities to activate development and revitalization of the Tannery Lands – options to include, but not limited to; municipal programs to incentivize, calls for proposals, and policy and regulatory amendments, and utilizing any existing tools an option approved by previous councils.
There appears to me to be no compelling reason that these initiatives were required to be undertaken
using Strong Mayor Powers. Speaking with Robert Washburn recently, you said that our town council
is “one of the most forward-leaning, fastest-moving and quick-to-pivot” councils, having “shown
collaboration at its finest.” Why would you not bring this to Cobourg town council for discussion and
approval?
Furthermore, why would you issue these directives in the middle of summer, a time when people are
taking vacations. It appears to me that these major requests run the risk of overloading the planning
staff.
Cobourg already has many housing development projects underway and in various stages of
completion, from new housing off King Street East, to ground clearing off Brook Road North, to the
recent purchase of the former Brookside lands by a London-based developer.
In your June interview with Robert Washburn, you say there are already approvals in place for another 600 units of housing for which permits have not yet been pulled. It would appear developers have no problem building here.
I am not convinced that our town is ready for the demands on municipal infrastructure of existing development, let alone new projects like a Tannery redevelopment.
You’re now looking at encouraging further development. This is deeply concerning. Cobourg is not a
faceless suburbia. Unchecked development threatens to make it one.
Finally, I’m wondering why you haven’t written about this on your personal social media — your
facebook page or mayor’s newsletter do not mention your use of strong mayor powers.
I also can’t find a mention of these directives on the town website. Given your desire for transparency, I suggest you open up your use of these directives to discussion in any or all of those formats.
Recently, you waited until 2 in the morning after a town council meeting to issue a statement. You did
not tell council you were doing this, and your statement led to serious concerns about your undestanding of your role in directing police operations, among other things.
When council requested an in camera meeting to discuss this, you refused to participate unless it was
an open session, and left the meeting as if you were a cranky child taking his toys and going home.
Now, after the final council meeting of the session before summer break, you issue two strong-mayor
directives with no apparent rationale or warning.
It’s my opinion that your actions as Mayor are precipitous, impulsive and demonstrate a lack of
judgement and maturity.
I strongly urge you to:
1. Modify those directives
2. Consider your actions and behave in a way more consistent with what you promised when you ran
for mayor.
During that campaign, you said “I want to work with everyone in this amazing community to build inclusive teams that work together.”
You said Cobourg should be a “ a town that makes a decision and then has the ability to follow through with that decision because there was public consensus achieved first.” And that council should be “led from a place of accountability and transparency by focusing on teamwork.”
Your recent actions as Mayor have been diametrically opposed to the promises and beliefs you
espoused as Candidate.
Please return to the principles you claimed to hold when running for the office you now occupy.
Bob LeDrew
Cobourg.
Deep Concern Over Use of Strong Mayor Powers in Tannery Lands Directive
Dear Mayor Cleveland and Members of Council,
I am writing as a deeply concerned resident regarding the directive issued on July 11, 2025, under Strong
Mayor Powers, which outlines a path forward for the Tannery Lands.
While I fully support the goal of increasing truly affordable and attainable housing, I am alarmed by the
decision to bypass meaningful collaboration with Council in the development of such a significant
initiative. Revitalizing the Tannery site is an important opportunity for our community, but the method
chosen in this directive undermines both democratic governance and public trust.
The directive’s instruction that the Director of Planning and Development report solely to the Mayor in
September, before any presentation to Council in October, is unacceptable. It effectively places the
Mayor as the sole gatekeeper of information and feedback, sidelining elected Council members from the
early and essential stages of the process. This is not collaborative governance; it is top-down decision
making that contradicts the spirit and function of municipal democracy.
Clause 3(a) further compounds this concern by instructing staff to explore land disposal options,
including potential land exchanges for community benefit, without prior discussion or authorization from Council.
Decisions involving the future of public land must be made transparently, with full Council engagement from the outset, not after plans have already been shaped behind closed doors.
It is also worth acknowledging that several Councillors were elected with greater voter support than the
Mayor.
Their voices, and by extension the voices of the constituents who elected them, deserve to be
heard and respected in all major policy discussions, especially those that affect the future of public
assets and housing in our town.
Cobourg deserves a municipal government that values collaboration over control, and transparency over
unilateralism.
The current approach marginalizes Council and disregards the democratic structure that
residents expect and deserve.
I call on Mayor Cleveland to revoke or revise this directive and to ensure that all future planning related to the Tannery Lands, and any other major initiatives, include Council from the very beginning.
I also urge Council members to stand united in demanding open, shared governance and to reject any process that diminishes their role or limits their input.
Sincerely,
Theresa Rickerby
Author: Pete Fisher
Has been a photojournalist for over 30-years and have been honoured to win numerous awards for photography and writing over the years. Best selling author for the book Highway of Heroes - True Patriot Love
