Whitby Free Press, 29 Mar 1989, p. 6

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

.~~ffATIt1TT fl<~ IOQO PAGE 6, WJJTIBY FREE PRESS, WEDJNESL>ft, M±VLti zv, l m Published every Wednesday By 677209 Ont ario Imc. -... Phone: 668-6111 Doug Anderson Publisher fe VOICE 0F THE COUNTY TOWN Maurice Pifher Editor 1 Advertising Manager Production Manager On the initiative of Jennifer Leet, about 50 Whitby residents attended a meeting last Thursday ta talk -about Whitby council's recent decision ta remove a public walkway from along the waterfront of Coscan's residential development on the former Cari ier- McNamara property. The meeting, though somewhat unruly at times, showed that at least some Whitby residents (and this newspaper) disagree with council's decision. lndeed, one of the bodies set up ta advise council on waterfront development, the Port Whitby Sport Fishing Association, also opposes the decision - and what is a weak explanat ion for that decision, fear of high liability costs. While some of those attending last Thursday's meeting had different ideas about how ta fight Town hall, they were ail in agreement that the decision was a bad one, now and for Whitby's future. Some residents were opposed to the entire development, which they say will ruin the Port area. Yet some longtime harbor area residents support Coscan and the development, for it means the start of dlean-up of the area. We, too, believe the development is good for Port Whitby. But remnoving public access is not. Yes. the Cartier-McNamara property has long been private and inaccessible. But council had the opportunity, through a condition of agreement with Let's have public access the developer, ta further open Up the waterfront ta aIl residents. Maybe once upon a time there was less regard for the harbor area in Whitby (and other lakeshore municipalities), but now residents in an expanding, changing Whitby see the benefits of a lakefront development, properly conceived to permit those residents who enjoy the resource for its recreatiorial (or leisure) pleasures. Leet and companly will now begin ta get names on a pet ition opposing council's decision. We urge you ta sign. As for liability concernis, does that mean any future walkway, along any otper section of the harbor, wilI be removed f rom plans. We do not buy the liability excuse. If we are ta accept that reason, then we must ask why the Town doesn't close down the pier at the harbor (Surely it, too, should be closed down ta keep those who f ish off it from hurting themselves). Or why not shut down the beach area? And, as Leet suggested Thursday night, why not remove the playground equipment at the harbor, since it could Iead toaa child's injury. Why not close H-eydenshore Pavillon? Don't ail have the potential, perhaps even more than a walkway, for liability concerns? Council should reconsider its decision and get the walkway back in the design of the develop- ment. It would be a progressive step that would help build up the harbor as a "people's place,"l as one councillor once put it, and thereby further enhance Whitby's reputation as a fine place ta live. Walkway decision:'Look, but don't touch' To thxe editor: Copy of letter to Whitby coumeil Dear Gentlemen and Lady: Re: Publie Waterfront Access At the annual genera:I meeting of the Port Whitby Sport Fisbing Association on March 19, a water frontage of its Port Whitby motion was made, seconded and unanimously carried that I write te you and express the concern and dismay of our rnembership arising from council's decision not te accept Coscan's off'er of a 3-meter walkway around the The reported reason for not accepting the walkway was potential liability. The Town aiready owns waterfront property and it does not make any sense that responsibility for the Long -Distance should be rej ected To the editor: Bell Canada will soon be mailing a card to ail subscribers. It wili be requesting approval te raise our basic rate te, $19 from $8.75, a staggering increase of $10.25. If this approval is obtained we wiil ail be forced te subsidize long distance calîs te, Toronto. Presently the charge is as low as il cents a minute. In addition, Bell offers a service called "Selectel" which is designed speciflcally for subscribers making many long distance calîs te Toronto. A monthly charge of $3 will discount rates further by one-third. This proposai is a poor value and it establishes a large base ($19) from which future increases cari be assessed. In addition, it is not fair. It is not fair te, the growing number of people in the Iow income bracket. Tlhese people cannot afford this increase. It is not fair to people who choos to be responsible for their own long distance cails and do not want te be forced to subsidize others. What ind of community could seriously support this proposai? It dispels any concept of good neighbors. Its intent is te, force everyone, including the unwilling and the low income, te support a selfish objective. In suxnmary, there is already in place a Bell service that assiste people making many calls te Toronto and it* cari be controlled as a personal responsibility. This will permit the rate te remain at $8.75 instead of $19 and it would not place an additional hardship on anyone. I arn confident that the people of Whitby will show compassion and respect for others and returri the Bell card marked with resounding "NO."- Whitby proposed walkway would increase the Town's insurance premiurn. A suggestion by one councillor that a decision be deferred until any cost could be determined was not acted upon. From news reports, it appears that council was worried about the view of the harbor being blocked by the fourth building. What good is the view if you cannot get to what you see - look but don't touch!!! Our association in meetings with Town staff ha.s strongly without care Whitby's waterfront wouid become an inaccessible to the public as Toronto's has to its citizens. That concern was reflected in the planning committee's report, but unfortunately, council for an unsubstantiated reason has seen fit to start down the path to public inaccessibility. We urge you to reconsider. Yours veiy truly, Nigel Schilling Chairman .l .i. il . .Ili . LETTERS The Whitby Free Press welcomes letters ta 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 number of the writer; however, on request, your namne may be withheld fromr publication if we agree that there is a valid reason. The 5n;q.sr reserves the right to rejeet or edit ail letters. Send to: flW I fditor, Whitby Free Press, Box 206, Whitby, Ontario JA N15fll<o drop through our mailsiot at 131 Brock St. N. "Now, gentlemen,) to start. Where do you suggest we put a Iaiid (ii site?" *The only Whitby newspaper inclepenaently ownecia ri peraiuu uy Whithy residents for Whitby residents. OFThe Free Press Building 131 Brock Street North,' P.O. Box 206, Whitby, Ont.' 1 m m

Powered by / Alimenté par VITA Toolkit
Privacy Policy