Whitby Free Press, 1 Mar 1989, p. 6

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

PAGE 6, WH[TY FME PREss, WEDNESD»', MARCH 1,1989 VOICE 0F THE COUNTY TOWN The on/y Whitby newspaper independent1i Whithy residents for Whitby residents. Published every Wednesday By 677209 Ontario Imc. Phone: 668-6111 Doug Anderson à j Publisher The Free Press Building ly oned nd oeratd by131 Brock Street North, ~y onedadoprateby .0. Box 206, Whitby, Ont. Maurice Pifher Editor Peter Irvine Advertising Manager Alexandra Simon Production Manager Whitby councillors have cited potential liability insurance problems and supposedly high *maintenance costs as reasons for rejecting a walkway along the shoreline on the former Cartier- McNamara (now Coscan). property. Would a walkway truly be unsaf e, requiring hefty insurance coverage? And just how much would insurance and maintenance of the walkway cost? Counçil 'has not ventured to answer these More answers questions, and it appears that Whitby residents will be restricted to visiting a more limited area of their own waterfront - that is, if any walkway along the shoreline remains part of the harbor plan since Iiability problems have already been suggested. Will there be any access to the waterfront near the residential development planned by Coscan? Perhaps what should have been thoroughly investigated are the costs of maintenance and insurance before the course of the walkway was diverted away from the westerly perimeter of the Coscan property. Those figures, and some recommendations from staff and consultants, might weIl be important when future developmerît of "our" harbor further occurs. Councillor relates "true intent" behind walkway decision To the editor. Re: Editorial "Keep the Public Walkway" and' head]ine "Walkway Removed froin Harbor Plan" As the councillor representing the harbor area, I must talcs issue with your editorial comments, that appeared in the Feb. 22, 1989 edition of your To the editor. May I please reply to the letter by Geddes Lee (Free Press, Feb. 15) about the Whitby Transit sy'stem. I would like to tell you, sir, that your attitude in a very selfish one. I do not know if Whitby needs more buses but it definitely needs a better service. One car in every family? I could name oflhand, at least 10 householders who havs- no car at aIl. During last week's foot cinic at the Whitby Seniors' Activity Centre, I asked 10 people about cars and only one of the 10 had a car! Does that tell you something? We are not ail poor or paper. These statements along with your front page headline "Walkway Removed from Harbor Plan" are made totally out Jf context and are an attempt to mislead the public in their perception of the true intent of my comments. When this -proposaI first came to the planning committee, I was one of several memnbers of the public voicing concern about "a aestitute. Would you then suggest, that we have a means test for subsidized transport? And what do you suggest for the students who go to and from school by bus. We are taxpayers, the saine as you, and surely flot ail our rnoney need go to subsidized amenities for the benefit of Whitby's younger population. Yours sinoerely, X. Barsam Whitby More letters on ipages 9 &18 walkway." Comments contained in the planning. director's report stated very clearly that the developer did flot want any access to this property either along the water's edge or anywhere else in the developinent, at that time. The Harbor Study supports a public walkway that would lînk one end of the harbor to the other end, with a continuous walkway (unintprriinted by any future Port Whitby deserves the best To the editor. Port Whitby deserves the very best developinent possible. Most people do not relate zoning and people together with our air quality and our health. Zoning is* like stoecking a warehouse or arranging your closet space. There are a specific nuniber Of people in each carton or box. Now you can either spréad the boxes ail over the floor and have no floor left showing, or you can neatly stack thein up in nice neat piles and stili have plenty of open space to walk around them. An example is, a townhouse subdivision. It has a specific number of boxes for a specific number of people that are spread all over the ground. What is left is an asphaît blanket covering the ground with no open space and very littie grass. Now a high rise has the saine number of people and the saine number of boxes but they are al neatly stacked up. There is plenty of open space and green grass and trees. Yes, that is right, - open space, green grass and trees. Have our councillors, our planners and our residents forgotten their science lessons and what our lives depend on? Green grass and trees produce the oxygen in our air which we al breathe every minute of our lives. Put nice high fise units in Port Whitby. Yes, develop but stop wasting our ground area. Stop destroying our open space. Less concrete and more grass and trees. Thank you Russ Wilde Port Whitby development). Because of these two points I questioned the proposai (last fail) on the basis that it appeared the developer did not want to compromise and allow a walkway in any forin. I therefore feit the public would not be allowed to walk fi-eely throughout the harbor area. Last week this proposai came back te the planning committee, of which I arn now a member. The developer was prepared to put a small narrow walkway along the water's edge, but the commnittee pointed out several potential liabilities that would be inherent in assuming this walkway. . . concerns, I may point out, would be an ongoing costly expense to the Town and its taxpayers, if implemented. Since these concerns were well-founded, a re-design of the public walkway along the Brock Street side of the property, was in order. Tis would still give the public access to the harbor and allow the walkway te extend along and link up with easterly and westerly points, as outlined in the Master Plan. So as you can see, I haven't changed my mind about a public walkway. What I have done, along with the rest of the committee, is te take responsibility for what woûid become a real liability to the taxpayers of Whitby, and in doing so, stili have incorporated the public concerns about building height, together with a public walkway, to maintain the harbor as a "people place." I trust you will print thids letter so the residents can make up their own minds, based on ail the facts. Sinoerely, Lynda Buffett Councîllor.- Centre Ward Town of Whitby Do you think publie access should be retained in any proposais for the redevelopment of the waterfront? Send your commnents to us at l3lBrock St. N. Box 206 LMN 5S1 or Phone our opinion line 668-0594 after 5:30 pm (or any time on the weekend) to record your comments. Your opinions will be published. Attitude about transit system was "selfish" LETTERS The Whitby Free Press welcomes letters to the Editor on any subjeet of concern to our readers. Letters should be brief and to the point - rarely more than 300 words. Ail letters must be accompanied by the name, address and phone num ber of the writer - however, on request. your name rnay be withheld from publication if we agree that there is a valid reason. The paper reserves the right to rejeet or edit ail letters. Send to: The Editor, Whitby Free Press, Box 206, Whitby, Ontario LiîN 5S1 or drop through our mailslot at 131 Brock St. N.

Powered by / Alimenté par VITA Toolkit
Privacy Policy