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

The Oakville Beaver, Wednesday March 13, 2002 - A3 Beaver editorials generate responses from readers Industry served by OPA 198 deferral Re "De\'eloper$ cash in on OPA 198" March 10. Major industry in Oakville and beyond may have stamped "deferral" on plans to move or reduce operations as a result of council's breather last week on develop ment plans. (Albeit that is all we got. a pause to get missing environmental data. All acknowledge, it should have been on the table before OPA 198 deliberations.) Industry shuts down if just-in-time goods do not arrive. Even before 9-11. all disciples of business in Oakville would meet to wring hands and proclaim a crisis exists in movement of people and goods in and around the Golden Horseshoe. Then slow down border clearance systems with real or feared terrorist attacks, chaos results with production schedules. Ontario's total auto industry is threatened. This reality must be front and centre with any plans to double traffic flowing into the arteries of people and goods movement. Ask Ford, GM.Chrysler and all their suppli ers if this is a critical element in production plans, of expansion plans, or shifting work elsewhere. No need to resort to sticking an "envi ronmentalist" label on thousands of citizens worried about such esoteric issues as sus tainable ground water systems, destroying non-renewable treasures of nature, or improving one of the worst air quality cor ridors in Ontario. Stick to what really gets attention: jobs and profits. Developers need more wisdom. Don't bash democracy. Do not unduly disregard grass roots common sense and ownership of community. That is just plain dumb, short term profit planning. A footnote: from one perspective, cyni cism permeated your editorial. Try praising and encouraging your neighbours to be caring, activist citizens. It makes for a healthy community. Dave Dykeman am grateful to have joined Oakvillegreen because I found many other residents are just as alarmed as I am. We are not going to be bullied by devel opers who want their own way! Why should they have power over city council? Ontario is the only province in Canada that has an OMB. It should be banished. 1 was not around to take on Mike Harris or Halton Region. Your point about how many cars we drive is ridiculous because the public transit system is not very efficient. I use the bus system sometimes, walk whenever possi ble. but unfortunately must drive if I have to get somewhere not accessible by public transit. 1 use my car responsibly and spar ingly. It is time to challenge developers, stop urban sprawl and clean up the environment. These green spaces are badly needed to keep the pollution from getting even worse. Never mind all the wildlife and water sys tem. which will be destroyed. We are not irresponsible for wanting a healthy place to live. ROSEMARIE GREEN Ed Note: On Monday morning our e-mail box was flooded with letters protesting our Weekend Editorial Developers cash in on OPA 198. At first, we were impressed by the spontaneous response the editorial generated, until we noticed two letters with identical comments. Then we noticed the follow ing attached to one of the e-mails: We need as many responses to the Beaver's weekend editorial as possible. I f you could please, please, please send in a letter to the editor by noon on Monday, I think we could make quite a splash on their letters page. Just a short letter is fuie. I've typed out the editorial below in case you haven't seen it, and i f you'd like some ideas fo r your letter, I 've lilted some points that we felt were important Democracy in action Why does the Beaver editorial attack the residents for wanting and expecting their public interests looked after? When coun cillors vote to represent their constituents, this is called democracy where the people have a voice in the affaire of their commu nity. It was clear that Oakville was going to go to the OMB no matter what the results were of the vote on OPA 198. If OPA 198 had passed, the residents would have taken the Town to the OMB. If OPA 198 did not pass, the developers would have taken the town to the OMB. Either way. there would have been an OMB hearing that would have cost money. And by the way. it appears that the Town spends much more money on correcting planning errors than the OMB hearing will cost. (Munn's Creek error cost over S3 mil lion to fix.) Shouldn't we do it right the first time? Urban sprawl will strangle the GTA if we continue to grow in traditional ways (for the last 50 years or so). We need to change how we grow. Change does not happen by itself. Change takes guts and it takes the willingness to take a stand. Oakville council has taken that stand and must continue to fight for what is right. U N D A CONSTABLE Local government not powerless RE: your editorial "Developers cash in on OPA 198." The thinking reflected in this editorial demonstrates the kind of attitude that per petuates the environmental problems the world now faces. Ultimately, environmental issues have to be solved at the local level. Talking to Mike Hanis and friends will not preserve 20% greenspace in Oakville. It was they who allowed local councils to develop the parkway. Your statement on pollution was pure nonsense. First who likes pollution? Second, we should not know ingly make plans that will only increase pollution! Yes, we should have argued against it at the region. Many of us weren't aware of that process. Should we now live with a bad decision because it was already made? The local government is not powerless. A strong showing of support from the local council, backed by a strong showing of sup port from the community makes the OMB decision more problematic. There is. in addition, new government legislation to help support a green decision. Your editorial, in essence, states -- we cannot stop growth, we cannot stop cars, the Region has decided, the OMB is omnipo tent, we are powerless. We're surprised the Beaver is so fatalis tic that it assumes local councils are impo tent before they have even begun to fight Where is the criticism of the developers? A few more months to acquire additional environmental data costs them nothing. Simply put, the developers are driving this process for their profit -- at the expense of our future environment. DAVID AND ANNA ARMSTRONG Growth requires sensible planning We write in response to the weekend editorial in the Beaver on the outcome of the OPA 198 vote at council recently. It is not that those who applaud the referral of the Town's plan oppose growth pointblank. they oppose doing it in an unin formed way (which doesn't bother the developers one bit). It is stupidity to pave over environmen tal features without first identifying the significance of those features. The perils of Walkerton have demonstrated all too well that we should pay particular attention to our water sources. Growth in such a way as to enhance the lives of those who eventually live in the area and indeed the lives of all of Oakville's residents requires sensible plan ning that is not rushed by threaLs of devel opers and the OMB. It is time for citizens to stand up for their rights and say, "We will release this land for development w hen we know the probable impact of that development." That's what those opposing passage of OPA 198 in its current form want. As for directing arguments to Mike Harris, we've all seen that that government is totally deaf to ordinary constituents: a waste of effort. Planning errors often cannot be undone or are extraordinarily costly to fix -- much more costly than OMB hearings. The fis cally responsible choice is not to barge ahead without sufficient information. We support the majority council vote to repre sent the constituents' wishes and not be railroaded into making hasty decisions. " M ARY SAUNDERS A N D JOHN RATTRAY Growth should suit environment In our opinion, you were both incor rect and impolite to state that local coun cil caved in to "overly idealistic resi dents." There were various reasons, but the following must have had a bearing: · a letter dated Feb. 14 from the senior planner stating that it would be wise, and acceptable to map the natural heritage system in the OPA; · a letter from Ministry of Natural Resources stating that the Buttonbush Swamp may be of more significance than originally thought: · the fact that, in the past. Town staff have not kept councillors properly informed of activity related to this sub ject; · the fact that, in the past, areas des ignated as "green belt" have been deci mated; · the fact that, this issue was going to the OMB. whether initiated by the devel opers or citizens. In speaking to the motion presented by Councillor Fred Oliver, he stated "we are not against growth." · We believe, as do these councillors, that growth should be designed to suit the environment not the other way around. B A R B A R A D U B R U LE , C. JUNE S A X TO N , P A TR IC IA O ' N EIL Smart Growth is defendable If I have my facts right, OPA 198 was a hastily put together document -- hasty because of developer's appeals to the OMB. The Stakeholders' Committee had very little time to examine all of the issues. Now. hopefully. Town staff and the necessary scientists will be able to put together an amendment, which will be more in keeping with the wishes of the residents of Oakville. We should not be bullied by the developers. The balance o f 80% urban and 20% rural surely is defendable at the OMB. This is Smart Growth. The strong stance taken by the Beaver in the editorial in the weekend edition seems to take the position of the mayor and the dissenting councillors. Where, please, is an editorial balance representing all o f the citizens of Oakville? For the good of our town, can we not all work together to save this precious green land, and be an example to the rest of the world and a legacy to our children and grandchildren? M O LLY FU LLER Confusing editorial Your editorial about OPA 198 was a lit tle confusing. Are you saying that Oakville Town council should not have listened to its citizenry? Are you saying that environmentallyconscious "well-meaning, if overly idealis tic residents" are wrong to wony about the urban sprawl likely to be thrust upon them? Do you think that members of such groups as Oakvillegreen and Gardens off Drugs are in these groups for their health? You'd better believe it: their health and yours. While the silent majority sits at home in a nice suburban town called Oakville, these "well-meaning" groups go to bat in an effort to keep Oakville a nice suburban town. So what was your point? E D IT H C U N N IN G H A M Editorials were offensive After reading some of the editorials re: OPA 198.1 would like to make a few com ments. The first one I found extremely offensive was calling Oakvillegreen irre sponsible for trying to keep the lands in north Oakville a greenbelt. The editorial in Sunday's edition was also rather offensive. We moved to Oakville from British Columbia a little over two years ago so we have not been here very long. As a new comer, I can tell you that the pollution here is absolutely disgraceful. Of course pollu tion is everywhere, but nothing like here. I fO W N / T a k t < > i l l e TOW N Welcomes great shops & services The Abbey Grill The Bam The Beat Goes On Blazer For Men Card 'N Party Caz's Fish & Chips Chapters Discount Nutrition The Doctor's Office Dollarama Guardian Town Centre Pharmacy Future Shop Glen Abbey Framing & Fine Art Images International Spa & Salon Imperial Dry Cleaners Licks The Liquor Store Total Travel Moore's Suits Napoleon Home Comfort Oakville Dental Oakville Sight & Sound Microplay Pet Valu Pizza Hut Pro Golf Prudential Town Centre Realty Scotia Bank Sport Check Staples® Business Depot Taco Bell Tun Horton's Toys R Us S TA P LE S B u s in e s s G R A N DO P E N IN G Saturday March 16th N orth S ervice R d. /f\ik v ille V i/ TO W N CENTOEI QEW