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

tee ia, site san Ji tia 4 Sib cd "aif J SL Si Editorial Comments The Fairgrounds Issue For the sake of all concerned, we can only hope that the re- opened issue of whether a new school can be built on the Port Perry Fairgrounds will be dealt with quickly. The Durham Board of Education, desperate for a site for a new elementary school in Port Perry has asked the Township council to negotiate with the Board of Directors of the Port Perry Fair to find out if the lease between the Township and the Fair Board can be broken, thus allowing the Fair to move to a new site and the Board of Education to build the new school to open in the fall of 1988. The council has agreed to this request after meeting for more than an hour with School Board chairperson Ruth Lafarga, director of education Bruce Mather and the Board's legal counsel Donna Shier, and trustees Joyce Kelly and Debbie Tredway. Mrs. Lafarga made it abundantly clear at Monday's meeting that the Board of Education wants the Fairground site for a new Port Perry school but must have that site secure by the end of next month to line up the necessary provincial grants for construction of the building to open in September 1988. Mrs. Lafarga also stated clearly that the Board of Education has examined nine alternative sites in this com- munity, and the Fairgrounds site is the best possible choice for a new school. This issue of course has been bouncing around Scugog Township for the past nine months and badly split the community in May when the Fair Board held a vote and rejected a move.to a new site. As one can see from the letters to the editor in this week's Port Perry Star, there is still a fall-out of ill feeling from the controversy. We sincereley hope this ill feeling can be put aside over the next few weeks and this community can get on with the important task of helping the Board of Education find a site for a new school. We trust the Fair Board of directors will take the opportunity to ~ listen to what Township council is prepared to offer by way of re- location assistance. We trust the Fair Board directors will keep an open mind and come to a rational decision one way or another. If members of the Fair Board and Agricultural Society simply don't want to break the lease, then so be it. But let's not drag this thing out any longer than necessary. If, after listening to what council is prepared to do to re-locate the Fairgrounds, the members of the Board don't want anything to do with the idea, then the School Board will simply have to find another site to get a school built in this community. We sincerely hope that in a couple of years this community has two things: a badly needed new school and a Fair that has the sup- port of all the citizens of the Township. To | "ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ROTATE THE WHEELS ON A TRACTOR?" the SORT PLOY ATE CO LIMNTLD 133 QUEEN Ste! #0 #04 %0 , PORT PERRY ONTABO LO ™O (4%) 983.130) C--O AAS AO le ee. ele J. PETER HVIDSTEN | 3 Member of the Publisher Canadian Community Newspaper Association Advertising Manager and Ontano Community Newspaper Association Published every Tuesday by the 1.8. MCCLELLAND Port Perry Star Co Ltd . Port Perry. Ontario Editor Authorized as second class mail by the Post Office Department, Ottawa, and for cash CARY ROBB payment of postage in cash Second Class Mail Registration Number 0265 <3 TAN CONN - (Qe a Subscription Rate: In Canada $15.00 per year. Bader ay10% Elsewhere $45.00 per year. Single Copy 35° ©COPYRIGHT -- All layout and composition of advertisements produced by the adver tising department of the Port Perry Star Company Limited are protected under copyright and may not be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher FALL FAIR LIVESTOCK PAVILION \ , | a \ \ \ \ WA \ : MATT AY \ \\ ' NE NN N\ A\ v N \ . "usa BE CITY FOLK CAME TO THE FAIR TO EXPERIENCE THE JOY OF FARMING. [F THEY FIND IT, | HOPE THEY TELL My BANKER ! Chatterbox by Cathy Olliffe HERE WE GO AGAIN! Heavy sigh. Here they go again. Raising the drinking age. Lowering the drink- ing age. Raising. Lowering. From 21, the drinking age was kicked down to 18 by Bill Davis, and when politicians got ner- vous, it crept up to 19. Now they're talking about raising the stupid thing up to 21 again. I, personally, don't give a tinker's hoot how high or low the drinking age is. Raising it to 21 won't affect me a bit , and even if they hike it up to 25 I'll still be able to show my face at the liquor store without borrowing anyone's 1.D. Nah, raising the drinking age won't affect me. And it won't affect most of the people reading this column. So why should we care? They're just kids, anyways, and everyone knows that more drunken kids cause accidents than anyone else, right? Maybe. I'm sure that when members of R.I.D.E. (Reduce Impaired Driving - Everywhere), make their submission to the government, they will no doubt include a list of statistics as long as Queen Street on what percen- trge of 19 to 21 year olds are involved in accidents related to drinking, compared to older folks. And as insurance companies tell us all the time, young people DO have more accidents than anyone else. So the obvious solution is to raise the drink- ing age and keep those young whipper-snappers out of the hooch and clear-headed behind the wheel. Right? No, it's not. At least, I don't think it is. First of all, raising the drinking age to 21 will not, I repeat, will not stop people aged 20 and under from drinking. That is a fact of life, pure and simple. Look at the present drinking age. The magic number of 19 does not stop teenagers from booz- ing. They get their older siblings or friends to buy it for them, they grab hold of fake I.D., they steal it from their parents. Guaranteed, you could go to just about any teenaged party in Scugog Township this Friday night and catch underaged young people drinking. I'm willing to bet on this. The only places where underaged drinkers won't be drinking is in bars. And | know from per- sonal experience that young people (in the 19 to 25 year vicinity) are not the worst alcohol abusers. It's the older crowd who do the most drink- ing in this area. They're the ones who run up a bar bill of fifty bucks or more and then climb into their cars and drive home, They are the alcoholics, the problem drinkers, the ones who bury their pro- blems in the bottom of a glass. Night after night. So why not raise the drinking age to 40? Or 50? Or even higher? There have been people kill- ed in this area because of drunk drivers in their 70's. So why not get ridiculous and ban drinking altogether? But that's another story. Let's get back to the reasons why the government shouldn't raise the drinking age. The first reason: raising the drinking age will not stop underaged people from drinking. The second reason: a lot of people will get really cheesed off. And I mean people, here. Persons between the ages of 19 and 21 are adults. With a capital A. They're not kids, as many older people tend to think of them. By the age of 19, the majority of people in this country in 1986 are a lot smarter than their parents were 20 or 30 years ago. They're not as naive, they're facing bigger problems, and in every other facet of life, they are treated as equals to any other adult they come up against. In business, in politics, in educa- tion, in relationships. Nineteen-year-olds are capable of deciding who is going to run this country; they're able to marry, have children, and look after their own families; they hold down full-time careers and are fast on their way to becoming the movers and shakers of the next decade. They can join the army, they are taxed, the can drive and they can think. They know the dif- ference between right and wrong and they know that drinking and driving don't mix. Probably a lot better than a lot of their elders do. For example, look at SADD (Students Against Driving Drunk) at Port Perry High School. [ have yet to see a bunch of 40 year olds in this area put such a concentrated effort into fighting impaired driving. These students aren't even old enough to drink, most of them, and yet they've worked their tails off trying to prevent the tragic accidents that are caused when a drunk decides to drive home. Students are far from responsible for all of the fatal accidents on Ontario's highways. And yet they are working harder than anybody to fight im- paired driving. They're taking on a responsibili- ty that most older folks have shunned. For the government to turn around and raise the drinking age, in the face of all this youthful responsibility, is a shame. It's a slap in the face, " § and I were a member of SADD, I'd be out-raged. #