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

PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1984. WHITBY FREE PRESS whitby Voice of the County Town M c nPuh Michael Ian Burgess, Publisher - Managing Editor* ivucun.yaniuy newsapva iepenuuiiy uwzueuanu operated oy VVfiLDy resiaents for Whitby residents. blished every Wednesday7 by M.B.M. Publishing and Photography Ine. Phone 668-6111 The Free Press Building, 131 Brock Street North, P.O. Box 206, Whitby, Ont. MICHAEL KNELL Community Editor CONWAY DOBBS AdvertIsing Manager Second class Mail Registration No. 5351 New home use bylaw should get couneil support As we reported on page 1 of today's edition, Whitby Town Council's administrative committee voted Monday night fnot to recommend implemen- tation of the proposed home occupation use bylaw. Quite frankly, this newspaper Is disappolnted In the committee's stand and, more specifically, disappointed by the positions of the committee's two regional coupcillors - Tom Edwards and Gerry Emm. ----T- -M---- The farmers have been reasonably quiet lately, but that doesn't mean that things have improved. My wife and I spent the weekend in the country, and as far as our neck of Southern Ontario is concerned, quiet desperation is the prevailing mood. It's going to be a tough spring and a tougher fall by the look of it. The banks are going to wind up owning a lot of farmland. The pages of the Western Ontario Farmer are clogg- ed with auctions these days - one advertisement after another, each representing a vision of the future that fell apart. Like the rest of us, the farmers, perhaps un- fairly, see the heavy hand of government regulation everywhere. The farm marketing boards, whose goals are to ensure realistic levels of production and fair prices, are a dubious blessing. The quota systems which the marketing boards administer lead to a variety of injustices, despite the fact that in many ways the order they have imposed is preferable to the chaos that existed before them. It is not ail the fault of the marketing boards, of course. There is no marketing board for feed corn, for example, and this year's prospects for corn are as dismal as they are for the controlled crops. Once again it is feared that farmers will not be able to sel corn this fall for enough money to cover their costs. And so a lot of farmers will spend the summer*watching the weeds grow, knowing that sitting on their hands isn't costing them anything except peace of mind. Tobacco farmers have been hard hit this year because of a failing market. It isn't that the world as a whole is smoking less. It is simply that the international market is being flooded by cheaper tobaccos from countries like Brazil. Canadian sales to Great Britain have fallen off sharply, partly because of the foreign competition, but also because Ottawa insists on an export levy that makes Canadian tobacco too expensive on the British market. l'm told that the tobacco companies won't even talk to the marketing board about probable volumes or price levels this fall, so that the board has had to make decisions in an uncertain gloom. As a result, Ontario tobacco farmers this year wiil only be able to market thirty-eight per cent of what their ex- pensive, hard-won quotas would normally entitle them to. Established farmers will survive for a time, but the huge amount of money they have had to put out to buy quota is now in jeopardy. For newer farmers with large bank loans it means that the end is in sight. Their ma- jor fixed charges wil remain the same, but their incomes will be cut by almost two thirds. For many, it won't matter how hard they work. The arithmetic says they'll be bankrupt by January. Who is going to want to stay in farming if this goes on much longer. More important, who will want to go into it at ail? Not the sons of farmers who've seen their fathers dying by inches for years now. It strikes me that the Federal Minister, Eugene Whelan, might be well advised to leave his bright green hat in the hall closet for a while, at least until the leaves come out. Right now, where we come from, it would make him an unmistakeable target. These two gentlemen moved and voted the recommendation for only one discernable reason: that no complaints have ever been made under the old bylaws governing home occupation uses. They also pointed out that any complaints the town has received have been kept In confidence, so they cannot even be discussed. However, because no complaints have been publically made should not be reason enough not to implement the new proposais brought forward by planning director Bob Short. We have reviewed Short's proposais and find them to be reasoned and reasonable, indeed. What the proposed measure proposed to do was defined, In a general enough manner, what constitutes a home occupation. He recommended that five tests, if you will, be applied to home oc- cupation use. They are: that no more thai 25 per cent of the home's floor space be devoted to the business; that the external character of the home remain unaltered; that no machinery or equipment shall be used that Is not normally found in a home; that no goods, wares, or merchandise be offered or exposed for sale; and, that no additional parking spaces be perrmitted for the carrying out of the home occupation use. Furthermore, the proposed bylaw would not allow homes to be used for business purposes if the owner engages employees In his business. These requirements do not strike this newspaper as being unreasonable. They exact a standard which would show the difference bet- ween a home occupation or cottage industry and a normal business enterprise. The wording of the bylaw will not prohibit in- dividuals from making money from their hobby. It will not outlaw such people as "the Avon lady" or the neighbourhood paperboy. It will not prevent a businessman or a professional from having an of- fice at his home from which he can work. Ar- chitects, writers and a host of other people wiil still be allowed to operate from their home. What this bylaw will do is protect the residential neighbourhood from the home occupation ac- tivity. For example, an Individual will not be allowed to operate a body shop for cars in his drlveway. That 1s fair enough. A few weeks ago, this newspaper came out in support of the home occupation bylaw because of the inequity cottage Industries create in municipal taxation. The mainstream business community must pay a surcharge of 50 per cent or more on their property taxes for the prIvIlege of operating a business In this municipality. We do not feel that it is fair that these cottage industries should be exempt from paying their fair share of municipal taxes. If they are In business to make a living, then they should bear the same tax load as do other businesses. The mainstream business sector in Whitby pays thousands of dollars more in property taxes as indîviduals than do ordinary homeowners. Those running businesses f rom their homes are taxed at the residential rate and do not have this added expense. But the issue of taxation aside, the proposed and revised home occupation use bylaw will be, we believe, a more equitable and flexible means of enforcing a.community standard, which we also believe, is wanted and needed by the vast majority of Whitby residents. The town should not and will not use this bylaw to put amateur silversmiths out of their hobby, but, they will use it to prevent someone from operating an auto body shop in a residential neighbourhood. What is so wrong about that? The recommendation will go before Whitby Town Council at its meeting next Monday night. It is this newspaper's hope that the remaining members of council will support the position of committee chairman, Coun. Joe Bugelli, and en- dorse this reasonable and fair piece of municipal legislation. a