"'T41TRY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1986 PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson T H E............... T HE.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... .. . * .. ** ~. ~.. *... ..~ *. * ..***~ r..I"~~ITIII~~ ...................~.............. .. . ....................*.*.. CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell Not since the early days of the now defunct Brooklin expansion scheme has this community been so divided over one particular issue. The issue of which I speak, of course, is the proposed $6.2 million expansion of the Iroquois Recreation Complex which Whitby Town Council rejected by a narrow, and controversial, margin of 4-3 a few days ago. When the Brooklin expansion project was the hot topic of conversation, the town was divided north-south geographically. Those living north of Taunton Rd. wanted it, those who lived south didn't. This time, the town is not so neatly divided. Citizens and taxpayers - no mat- ter where they live in the town - are lining up on both sides of the issue. Some feel so strongly about it that they're forming their own committees and circulating petitions seeking support for their position. One of these groups is headed by Ed Buffett, a local businessman who also serves as the chairman of the Whitby Downtown Business Improvement Area Board. Ed supports the ex- pansion because he believes that not only is'it needed but it is vital to the in- terests of the downtown business community. Ed also believes that if the town doesn't have adequate recreation facilities, new people won't buy homes here and the spillover effect from that would hurt the local economy. While Ed is asking people to say yes, Colin Duddridge, of Canadian Oaks Dr., a former president of the Corridor Area Ratepayers Association is asking people to sign his 'no' petition. He fears the project is too costly and that Iroquois Park is in the wrong location to be of any benefit to the people living in either the East or the North Ward. Both of these men are fine, community spirited citizens who want to do what is best for the community and really have deep concerns about the future of this municipality. I believe that both are well intentioned men of good will who want to make a positive and meaningful contribution to Whitby. I wish we had more like them. Despite this, Ed and Colin are simply reflecting how the rest of us feel. Having spoken to many people in the town over the last few days, I honestly believe that the concerned citilens of the town are divided on the issue. Per- sonally, I'm not sure one way or the other. But, I do have some thoughts to offer. For example: -fact one: recreation facilities in this town are disgustingly inadequate; -fact two: they are monopolized by the minor sporting organizations who have too many kids and not enough space (I mean, have you looked at the time alloted for public swimming lately?); -fact three: people are demanding more and better recreation facilities, they have more time off and are more interested in fitness and other recreation ac- tivities; -fact four: no matter what sins it is already guilty of (and there's a legion or two of them) Iroquois Park already exists; and, -fact five: no matter what else is done Iroquois Park is in desperate need of a few megabucks worth of renovation and repair work. So, where does this leave us? It leaves us with an inadequate recreation j facility that sits on a parcel of town-owned land big enough to land a Boeing 747 on in a community with a desperate need of proper recreation facilities. That's where. Critics who say that Iroquois Park is in the wrong place are 100 percent right. But, what are we going to do about it now? It's a little impractical to pick it up and move it. Speaking from a purely economic viewpoint, perhaps we are better off to sink our money into Iroquois Park because at least we have a base to build on. However, people from the North Ward and the further reaches of the East Ward won't find it very convenient to use an expanded and fully functioning Iroquo- Park. Their tax money will be sunk into something they will find impractical.o use (although Iroquois Park is only five minutes drive from the K-Mart on Garrard Rd.). This is a perplexing problem. It is also a purely political one with al seven members of our illustrious (though sometimes trying) council jockeying for positions as if they were riding in the seventh at Greenwood. Actually, I think I know how this little situation is going to solve itself. Com- promise. Everybody's going to give a little and take a little. And the compromise will be this: enough money will be found to make the necessary repairs and renovations at Iroquois which will also get the much needed second ice pad. Conversely, to appease the other side of the issue the fit- ness facility will be constructed in a more centrally located and convenient spot - probably somewere in the Brock St. and Rossland Rd. area after council makes a disasterous land swap with some developer who will demand three times more than the land is worth and a score of official plan concessions to boot. I'm not sure I like this compromise, but I think it will be the only one everyone can live with and that everyone will accept. However, the other sad note about this compromise is that we're not going to save any money because of it - it might even cost us a few extra bucks. Every member of council has been hurt politically because of this decision. Every one of them have lost some credibility and respect with a number of their constituents. Even if they supported the councillor's stand, many have remarked at how badly the entire issue was handled. The only person who is going to come out of this debate smelling like a rose (instead of the end droppings of a horse) is going to be the one who finds the compromise and then persuades not just the members of council to accept it but also gets the support of people like Ed Buffett and Colin Duddridge. WITH OUR FEET UP Once a tine was I cherished no hours more than those in which I would stoke my mighty briar. Curled up in my favorite reading chair, I would puff away the chapters. Mosquitoes three concession roads away were kept at bay. Mosquitoes have a very ineffective health lobby, and their complaints about second hand smoke went unheeded. This was back in the sixties, an age in which smoking was part mystique, part duty, and all image. What young man in his twenties who called himself an editor could be without his briar? How many'people would trust a fresh-faced kid then, had the kid not been armed with a five-dot Brigham? In those long-ago days of heady freedom, a smoker was at full liberty to drop flaming ash on tie and sweater, rug and tablecloth. There were, of course, even then a few complain- ers. I distinctly recall a six-year-old feigning coughing spells every time I lighted up while driving a car. But back then it was a macho world, and whiners were given little heed. I give you all this background to support my credentials in speaking for Smokers Rights. Now that smokers are in the minority, someone has to speak up for them. Those who would limit smokers right to puff away in the workplace have not counted all the facts. Fact one: not counting the exceptions, smokers don't live as long as non-smokers. They therefore have less time available to pollute the air of non- smokers. Non-smokers can revel in the fresh air long after the smokers have retreated to bronchial heaven. Fact two: non-smokers are known to secretly blow fresh air straight into the faces of smokers. You seldom see a smoker demand that these other jerks give up breathing, do you? Fact three: those who say that smokers smell of stale tobacco have never smelled the clothing of non-smokers after a day in the office shared with a smoker. Who smells the worse? Why the non- smoker, of course, since he cannot cover up the must with a freshly lighted cigarette. Fact four: the fire danger of smoking is greatly over-rated. Smoke detectors alone have cut the death toll substantially in past years. Fact five: some non-smokers create more noxious substances in the air just grilling steaks. We could continue indefinitely, but what is the use? Non-smokers will continue to wear buttons that say: GASP or some such acronym and argue, unfairly, that smokers are basically slobs. This is untrue, and shows the weakness of the whole anti- smoking lobby. That one smoker, or two, or three, throws cigarette butts in drinking fountains does not mean that all smokers would. And just because smokers seem without thought to grind butts into the floors and hallways of public buildings does not make them vandals. Stupid, perhaps; thoughtless, yes. But vandals, no. Examine the floor adjacent to a public waiting area - say outside a courtrpom, or the waiting room outside the maternity ward. The cigarette burns - on the floors, the furniture, the clothing, the walls - the uninitiated blame on smokers. Not so, as a moment's thought will tell you. Smokers are worriers. The difficulty lies with the people who provide one tiny ashtray and expect high-strung smokers to hit the damned thing. We live in a world now that moves too fast by a half. Remember those long afternoons of thirty, for- ty years ago? An hour in Miss Currie's grade 10 geometry class defined infinity. That was because we yearned to get outside and light up before the school bus came. Smokers, when they were in the majority, slowed the world down for collective smoke breaks. Now non-smokers are the majority. Presto! - fewer smoke breaks and hours just whizz by. We're doing things too fast. If we'd only al smoke more, we'd make fewer mistakes. And manners! Hah! Non-smokers have been known to accept a cigarette offered in ignorance, break it in two or three pieces, and walk away with a smirk. Imagine wasting good cigarettes like that. Just to throw it away like that without contributing to a health problem. Smokers recognize that they are part of an essen- tial chain in the cyclical economy of this great land of ours: tobacco farmers, cigarette manufacturers, retail merchants, smokers, doctors, undertakers. Even as a non-smoker, I can see this essential economic argument. It would be only fair were the government to tax non-smokers a cigarette equivalence tax. Insiders say that Brian Mulroney will send Mila into tobacco farming areas to make that announcement within weeks. Remember: you saw it first here.