The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

v?" 77 ,, _7 w» ,, 7 W WAT‘Emmmm-Wedneldly.my2£.20w-IT l “its!“ v. c ,, TOP PlLLOW Publ' ' ' d °d b ? “ROW 10 transn IS a gOO 1 ea, llt W110 pays . . ubltc transit , or 7 bilities. on rapid transit has unforâ€" supporting one-third ofthe - .” 1 " n more appropriately _| in terms of reducing tunately been long in rhet» project cost. ' ‘ , who pays for public |>- lhl \ l \\ congestion, Hepburn oric and short on action A subsequent ‘ “ t transit â€" has re~emerged \l VIM-"VHRS argues that commuters As noted in the 2007 announcement in lune of Skmvc‘wn W as a major issue on the ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ would avoid roads with provincial budget. the gov- local and prow’ncial public my: a tolls and ubsequently jam ernment was committed to Continuedonpagezo policy agendas, ' ‘ ' j” J secondati routes such as The first significant ” Kt, Lake Shore Blvd. or ' l development occurred ' i' 1 BayviewAvenue. May 19 when the Toronto , ' .i it should be noted the ‘ \ , \ \ y 2 Board of Trade issued a "A TOMB“) Board ofTrade has \ l l l l \ l l ’ \ L ‘3 l l 3 discussion paper on “rew . " made it clear they are not enue tool" options avail- a. . , advocating one option over able to support transit la theother. across the Greater Toronto ' Their primary objective and Hamilton areas. ART is to recognize a serious The paper has been SINCLAIR problem with respect to . developed to ignite a pub- g funding future transit lic debate, as the fall ' ' ’ "' ' capacity and all levels of E municipal elections However. Gee offered government can no longer g approach. on sustainable the opinion that if resiâ€" delay critical decisions on 2 and dedicated funding dents of the nation‘s largest this issue. p i ‘ mechanisms for meeting urban centre were present- There Should be no dis- % BCBG ”If” BUM ' future demands. ed with a compelling argu- agreement on that point B l The options presented ment for their implemen~ From a local transpona- Cal r , . m, IE not include, among others. a tation. they may. at least. lion perspective. it has M m WE§¥ one per cent regional sales want to examine the been 311005! oneyeax since tax. parking charges. con- option further. regional council voted " , _ a . k i ". < gestion charges, and the Bob Hepburn of the strongly in faVOUf Of rapid . ' ‘ ' I ' ‘ ' (T3 Z ' always controversial tolls. Toronto Star disagrees. transit. ' ' < ‘ g to Globe and Mail urban Tolls which theoretically This proposal was _ " y . f $5 . columnist Marcus Gee should getcarsoffthe road based to a significant ”' ‘ ' ' ' i wrote last year that dis- are an extra tax on degree on a financial com- cussing toll roads in Town motorists, many of whom mitment from the province 5 1 9 . S 6 9 . S H O E ( 7 4 6 3 ) to is the equivalent of have no reasonable alter- for covering two-thirds of BELMONT VILLAGE l KITCHENER drinking hemlock - pure natives for arriving at work the cost. political poison or any other daily responsi- The record Of promises 7 3 0 BELMONT AVENUE ‘ WEST m i f l ’M it _, g , hi. I a ' . ‘ ‘ Biggt for an .. , ‘:'),_‘._L.\ s’, . Q}? I mam-mind y -.,v< Winn: . 1; “fee a a, m 4 ‘ “Mm a - Q f" v" Trophies Jain Today! , i thSAbiIit ~ is int» wm- , -- it ' MUNEY ‘ -' Y i"“,. Hasn't-shirts A , "are a- “'“'°’ new" ‘ 4 Walter Gretzky - ‘ d 5.5 I Lunch - | A ’~.' / d- * J», v- mm.- "0 Enrolment "-' t sauna? m1 30m, 2010 31° Per wee“ f f ~ ~ Registration 9-00am DICEONmm-o WatedooErbStmetCoâ€"EdClub ‘ ' 450 Erb W. a! "7 1 firm-dazmnayMMIIMonmlma" &. j ‘ mmufiudwmauvfl‘l 1 Mfufiaphhnadqfiinmbsm“.mnhifiy - - 1 male-l: mum-”mm CAI-L ll. m ' orvwwmumM-ryhmca Gmdl’fé a) J M A R F”. ..~_ \ b “I ‘ Aefiflnm L ,. _-_â€"_~=~_-;-_ in F I TN E55 ”h anal-mun . ,___,__.,._,._ "le'hâ€"Ulm R “- mm M mm mm a”... ”a... - i m ru-Lmi.'=-?~Mn‘r~--~-_~-~ ...... -_.. _ r M a“ I m...“â€" a“, y s“ ‘f m on. “M.“- nan-hu- “madman-gun-“ ' W 7 w“