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

On second thought... We wonder how many trustees at the Halton Catholic District School Board might consider taking back last June's decision not to participate in a four-partner, joint Halton Regional Campus. Today the Catholic school board finds itself in a struggle to replace outdated administrative buildings that are literally falling apart. Preliminary findings indicate the board may be facing the financial burden of a $22 million-plus stand-alone facility, the cost of which won't be picked up by the Ministry of Education. (The ministry does not fund administrative facilities.) Some trustees are hesitant to hire the services of real estate agents to find suitable land for a new administrative property until the board can figure out how it's going to pay for the building. Nearly 10 months ago this same school board failed to reach a consensus regarding a shared facility-- this, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of its own school councils were supportive of a single Halton administrative campus. Written support for the regional campus from more than three-quarters of the board's school councils failed to convince a majority of elected trustees not to let an opportunity to be part of a cost-saving collective slip through its fingers. While some trustees were concerned about the negative impact a shared facility might have on the board's ability to maintain its Catholicity, others from within the board viewed it as an opportunity to become part of an inclusive society. Back in June, a 4-4 deadlock vote essentially rejected the board's membership in a regional administrative campus that would have included partners from Halton Region, Halton Regional Police and the Halton District School Board. The Catholic school board could have been a ground-floor partner in an innovative concept intended to save the region's tax base millions of dollars-- compared to the four partners pursuing separate administrative homes. Instead, it now finds itself on the outside looking in. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR A town is more than a collection of subdivisions Dear editor, I read Lisa Tallyn's article in the March 2 edition and had to laugh. Not due to the review of our newest grocery store, but from the feedback she received by local Georgetown South residents. I have lived here now for just over three years, previously residing in the big, bad city of Toronto. For all that Toronto offers, whenever I travelled to other parts of the province or country, mentioning Toronto quite often and unfairly seemed to convey a certain arrogance or a certain entitlement, somehow implying that I was saying that "I'm better than you". Just because I lived there I was lumped in with this image. I would find myself defending the city by reminding people of the vibrant culture and entertainment it had to offer, but really it had to do more with defending my own personality. I am certainly not arrogant or "better than" anyone, but that was always the impression. Then, while reading your paper, I couldn't believe I came to a letter stating, "We have always been the Cinderella to Georgetown" written, presumably, by a resident in the area now considered as Georgetown South. This is the part where I laughed. This is a great term coined by our friendly, albeit marketing savvy, real estate sales agents, who want to convey their message of a "preferred" area to buy a home. Rather than advertising "An area yet over-developed, without the boundaries and growth restrictions of the beautiful Credit River and Silver Creek, with vast open farm fields just waiting for profitable new construction and the closest point to Toronto", the term "Georgetown South" certainly sounds more appealing. I have grown to love Georgetown. Providing we keep an eye on balancing development with infrastructure, I could live here for some time to come. Maybe we need to remind the newest residents to look west, north and east to see what makes this town whole. Many people lived here before I did and created a town where I chose to buy a home. Let's stop the labels and recognize that a town is more than a bunch of new subdivisions built on the most viable land still available to build the homes, where people maybe just want to share in what was here in the first place. Enough with labels and divisive marketing tactics. Can't we all just get along? Peter Heal, Georgetown Running on roads is better for joggers Dear editor, Re: Joggers should stick to the sidewalks. I was surprised to read both recent letters asking why runners cannot run on the sidewalks? To inform the uninformed, every running magazine, every physiotherapist and every sports medicine specialist will tell runners the same thing... running on sidewalks is a no-no. Injuries increase dramatically when runners take to the sidewalks, due to the unyielding properties of the concrete; this is very hard on the joints in the lower body. Where possible, runners are advised to run on earth/trails first, asphalt second and sidewalks a distant third. When running on the road, it is best to run against traffic (visibility), slightly away from the edge of the road as the downward slope of the road towards the curb (for water drainage) causes one leg to go further down than the other, causing an imbalance in the running cadence. This again can result in injury. Unfortunately for us runners, Georgetown is not packed full of suitable running trails dotting the town, and many of the trails we have are unserviced in the winter, leaving dangerously icy conditions underfoot. Also, many people do not shovel their sidewalks (despite a bylaw demanding this), creating the same difficult and injury-inducing conditions. Also, there is no law which applies to runners and the sidewalk. I hope this information is helpful to those who do not run, and I hope it answers your question as to why we cannot run on the sidewalk. Perhaps its best if we try to understand one another and get along. Kathryn Gennatos, Georgetown More letters pages 8, 9