Young Adults Have a Voice. Can They Build a Future in Prince Edward County?

The question came from the youth of Prince Edward County, and the moderator kept the instructions simple: give three reasons why young people should vote for you.

The answers offered listening, employment, recreation, support for existing services and opportunities to participate in local government. Terry Shortt added that he was a nice guy; Brad Nieman recalled students approaching him at the Picton Fair; Ernie Margetson described visiting the ROC and learning about its value.

There were worthwhile ideas in those responses. For young adults considering where to work, live and build relationships, however, they opened a larger question: what would actually change under the next mayor?

For this article, we are focusing on people aged 18–25. Their circumstances differ considerably, but many are navigating education, early employment and independent living. Some grew up here; others might discover PEC through a visit and imagine making it home.

A convincing answer needs to speak to both.

Shortt offered the most clearly defined participation proposal: a committee with six young people and two councillors, reviewing municipal agenda items and providing feedback. But his description included a qualification:

“They’re not going to be as experienced as we are but they do have good ideas.”

That wording can reasonably feel patronizing. Before acknowledging what young people contribute, it establishes their relative inexperience. His suggestion that their responses would be used “to some level” also leaves the committee’s influence unclear.

Municipal experience matters, and young members may benefit from guidance. Yet they bring knowledge adults cannot substitute for: what it feels like to enter the local workforce, seek a first apartment or try to find community here today. Would they help set priorities, and would council explain how their recommendations affected decisions?

Margetson grounded his response in an existing organization:

“I think that the municipality can support youth in terms of the programs and services that we offer in the municipality, such as the Recreational Outreach Centre (ROC), which I visited and found out how valuable that is to a number of youth in Prince Edward County in terms of meals, and computer stations, and socializing.”

Recognizing an established service is useful. The next question is what “support” would involve: maintaining funding, expanding access, strengthening partnerships or addressing an identified gap?

Nieman’s fair encounter supplied a personal example of approachability. His recreation proposal was more consequential:

“We don’t have any recreation services here as far as programs that the municipality offers. We need to get that to get them interested in sports again and the recreation side. It’ll build the community.”

That claim needs clarification about direct municipal delivery versus community programming supported by the municipality. His underlying point, that recreation can strengthen community, deserves consideration. So does whether sports reflect the full range of young adults’ interests.

An important development provides context for all three answers. On September 22, 2026, council approved a Youth Engagement Strategy. The next council would inherit a framework rather than begin with a blank page.

The accompanying staff report places implementation priorities and resources with the incoming council. It recommends considering up to $30,000 in the draft 2027 budget, with a progress report in late 2027. That funding recommendation should not be confused with money already committed.

What would each candidate prioritize, fund and measure? Which proposals would advance existing work, and which would add something different?

The economic question deserves particular attention. Shortt linked youth departures to a lack of employment; Nieman acknowledged employment existed, although perhaps not at the scale young people wanted.

Available evidence suggests a more complicated picture. The County Foundation’s compilation of 2024 employment estimates identifies substantial employment in health and social assistance, accommodation and food services, and public administration. Those figures describe sector employment, including self-employment; they do not show vacancies or opportunities available to inexperienced applicants.

Meanwhile, the municipality’s 2025 Economic Snapshot reported scarce apprenticeships, difficulty placing skills-program graduates in construction, and approximately 280 jobs lost through the Highline mushroom-farm closure. It also documented successful training placements and planned efforts to strengthen year-round tourism employment.

For someone starting out, the relevant questions include dependable hours, training, advancement and earnings sufficient to live independently. Summer employment can provide experience and income. Building a working life requires a longer horizon, whether through local employment, entrepreneurship or remote work.

Housing determines how much of that opportunity is usable. A job becomes harder to accept when suitable accommodation is unavailable nearby.

Reporting on the regional housing consultations in spring 2026 described insufficient rental supply, reliance on privately owned homes and demand for smaller apartments in a market dominated by larger detached houses. Consultants explicitly connected housing shortages to the local workforce.

Affordability figures also require care. A HART housing report records PEC renters’ median monthly shelter costs of $1,080 in 2021. That historical figure reflects existing households, including established tenancies; it cannot tell a young newcomer what finding accommodation would cost today.

Transport connects these issues. Accommodation farther from work may introduce vehicle expenses or schedules that make a position impractical. Education and services can pose similar challenges.

The 2021 Shared Learning Report, involving 72 survey participants and 19 focus-group participants aged 12–29, recorded transportation concerns in every focus group. One participant also described dividing time between PEC and post-secondary study elsewhere, then returning without feeling connected to local opportunities. This was a small, pandemic-era study, so its findings should prompt current questions rather than serve as a description of every young adult.

Affordability influences whether someone can live here. Social connection influences whether they want to.

One participant in that same report put it plainly:

“The best thing that people ever did for us was to help us find community”

That observation gives recreation a broader purpose. Opportunities to meet people, develop friendships and pursue interests can make daily life more satisfying, whether through athletics, music, volunteering or informal gatherings.

More recent consultation adds detail. The 2026 strategy’s account of priorities among ages 18–24 includes affordable activities, alcohol-free social spaces, intergenerational connections and practical skills such as budgeting and cooking. These are recorded participant priorities, rather than a representative ranking of what all young adults want.

There are encouraging experiences worth hearing, too. A Greater Than County Youth Collective presentation includes a published testimonial from a 21-year-old participant:

“Due to this experience, I am now considering pursuing a career in graphic design!”

The account describes skills gained through participation. Although selected by the organization, it illustrates how community involvement can help someone discover possibilities for their future.

For prospective newcomers, we need more firsthand evidence. What attracts visitors aged 18–25, and what changes when they consider an ordinary working week here? Our research found stronger evidence about local youth experiences than about this group’s relocation decisions. Their views belong in the conversation.

Leaving should not automatically be treated as failure. Education, adventure or a different career may reasonably take someone elsewhere. A healthier objective is ensuring that staying, returning or arriving remains a viable choice.

Meaningful participation can help identify what would make that choice possible. Greater Than already describes a youth-led steering committee, where young members lead meetings and agenda items while adults provide support. Candidates should explain how their proposals would connect with that work.

Participation also takes time and resources. Meetings need to accommodate employment, study and transport. Recruitment should reach people beyond those already comfortable with government. Fair compensation deserves consideration when young adults are asked to contribute sustained research or design work.

Existing services warrant equally careful assessment. The ROC’s Youth Inclusion Program into Adulthood serves ages 16–24 with individualized support involving housing, employment, financial literacy, legal services and transportation. Its published scope extends considerably beyond meals and social activities.

Funding, participation and outcomes should be open to scrutiny. But cost per participant alone cannot establish value: intensive assistance for a smaller group requires different interpretation from a well-attended recreational event. We need comparable information about expenditure, unique participants, accessibility and results before drawing conclusions.

Each candidate could now offer voters a more concrete commitment: identify a first-term priority for young adults, explain the municipal role, set out likely resources and describe how progress would be judged. They should also explain how young people would influence implementation and receive responses to their recommendations.

PEC Connect invites people aged 18–25 to contribute: current residents, those who left, those who returned, and visitors who have considered moving here. What do you value about PEC? What makes building a life here difficult? What would change your decision, and when have you felt your views mattered?

Candidates, municipal staff, employers and youth-serving organizations are also welcome to provide clarification and evidence, including consultation age breakdowns, employment pathways and program outcomes. Please comment below or email PEC Connect; we will update the article as information arrives.

Young adults have already offered ideas and described experiences. The next mayor’s opportunity is to show how those contributions will shape a County where they can imagine, and afford, a future.