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

A 6 - The Oakville Beaver, Wednesday, March 6, 2002 EDITORIALS AND LETTERS THE OAKVILLE BEAVER 467 Speers Rd., Oakville Ont L6K 3S4 (905) 845-3824 Fax: 337-5567 Classified Advertising: 845-2809 Grtulation: 845-9742 O T^M H IA NO LIV ER Publisher N EIL O LIV ER Associate Publisher TERI CASAS Office Manager M A RK D ILLS Production Manager JILL D A V IS Editor in Chief K E L L YM O N TA G U E Advertising Director RI2IER0 V ER TO LU Photography Director STEVE CROZIER Circulation Director R O DJERRED Managing Editor THE OAKVILLE BEAVER IS PROUD OFFICIAL M EDIA SPONSOR FOR: iM a m Pub«ftna & D A t u v g i n . n u a A + tS \ * m n ) to w s A O ftrtw r M aton * n tt'C o u ta r. A rffu Eraa»pn» Bam# W n » w Barry* 8 j» TN* V U A BOfcn FfMrpnw. Brampton GuanSan Q urtrgKr Post Buangon fr c p p r g Hr*%. 0>y Parent. Golngw oo a W n o i Cometfion Latf Merer. Erti * * c c j » C c u * y Route. E ttx c * u j Guankan Flarnborough Post Gaorgetown nk txre krb 'A dQ n Free Press. Hvreaon Rm m h . Hurma 8 u *n « a T inw , WnQflon T T m W wK lindaay Thai Wo**, Martham EcorrmcJ S Sun V feto rtV w rfe-iQ jttfvie M m * M«on Canodun Ovampfin. Milton Shopping N M , MBrsnaauga Buaraaa Timoa. Moxtaauga Nm o . Napanae Guide. NawmaAaVAwore Ere Bamer. Morthuntwrtand ocfcey New*. Orillia Today, O i l w a ' ^ O u r m g i o r Port Pany V n Weak. Owen S o r t TftMie. Pntmem on Obaarvat. Pa*rt»rough Tha War*. Pvctnn County GuOp. Rctvnond m*'Thorrtia\toughen L K m l. Scarborough Mirrot, SkxJM toUftndge Thduna. Forw«r Vbung. Oty of Guardian Recognized for Excellence by Nnnfupm A ssociation Ontario Community /* » . / A r i Canadian Community AsMcUtkxi YHQA C. Jt&MFund * © \j* m v SK Suburban Newspapers of America <9rr m j& m n i (9»ki>iUr 3 //n * ir ik O V" © o?fr Th» C MIL IST A T IB O A R O M W on m O w ct fin d | o a k v llle g a lle rie s | MQS TV AUCTION SEJS7 w9usw$$omm« Our mailbag overfloweth A goal of every newspaper is to generate interest and stimulate debate on important topics within the community. In order to accomplish this, a newspaper takes an editorial position -- for or against -- on a subject. That position is not always popular one. But a newspaper should not base its editorial position on a popularity contest, but on what it believes is right for the community it serves. Such was the case with the editorial we ran in the Weekend edition entitled `Developers cash in on OPA 198.' We were flooded with letters, mostly emails, strongly disagreeing with our editori al. That's fine. In a democratic society, everyone is entitled to an opinion. It would have been nice if this sudden outburst of public opinion was a sponta neous rebuttle to our editorial. Sadly, this wasn't the case. The letter writing campaign, as demon strated by a few identical letters sent to us, and a copy of the Emergency Letter Writing Campaign alert someone accidentally emailed to us, was an orchestrated event designed to sway public opinion much the same way Oakvillegreen has tried to pres sure councillors by packing council cham bers with its supporters. However, there were a few common misconceptions running through many of the letters that we would like to clear up. These included (a) we are in collusion with the mayor, (b) we are in the pockets of the developers; and (c) we are stupid. We can assure you that we are none of the above. Honest. This does, however, bring up a disturb ing trend we have noticed among many (not all) opponents of OPA 198. They seem to harbour the attitude that since they believe their cause is just, anyone who disagrees with them must be crooked or unjust. Again, we are neither. We simply don't believe the town is well served by knowing ly heading into an Ontario Municipal Board without a plan to defend. We believe the end results will be disas trous with developers being handed over control of development while the Town, and its residents, sit helpless on the sidelines. Another misconception of some of the letter writers is that opinions expressed in the editorial on this page colour the view of our coverage. It is the policy of the O ahille Beaver's editorial department to strive for balanced coverage in all news reports. The editorial expressed in this space does not colour our coverage on events in the rest of the news paper. We are proud of that and will disagree with anyone who says otherwise. In a democratic society, everyone is enti tled to their opinion. For this reason, we are broadening this week's Letters to the Editor section to other pages in the newspaper to print as many of the Emergency Letter Writing Campaign missives as possible. Orchestrated or not. the letter writers are entitled to their opinion, just as we are enti tled to ours. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Never-ending growth is not normal My sentiments are echoed in the following points as outlined by Oakvillegreen. Current rates of growth are not sustainable nor are the economic models that they are based on. I wish I could say when people will truly understand that we live in a closed ecosystem and that we all breathe the some air and drink the same water. When will we all make deci sions that respect the fact that there is actually a generation or two beyond our own and limit the self-serving attitudes o f developers. Anything that is apparently altruistic in their offerings is nothing more than paying lip serv ice to the powers that be. in both my opinion and in my experience. There is a huge quality o f life issue at stake here for current residents of Oakville and the GTA and I will continue to support the efforts of environm entally-conscious people who clearly understand the long-term consequences of overdevelopment. In addition I'd like to address the Beaver's comments on "walking the talk". Specifically, in regards to vehicle use I minimize it by leav ing my car in the garage and commuting round trip to Toronto by bicycle from March to November. This is my badge of honour. This is where I take my stand on trying to alleviate the incessant pressure we put on our environment. I've been doing this for the 11 years that I've been an Oakville resident and I encourage oth ers to act in an equally environmentally respectful manner. Considering I own and run a successful business, am in my late 40s, have three children and a wife, teach and still have time for a life I don't buy the argument that we all drive or "have to" drive. There are alternatives to everything if everyone would just lose the idea that neverending growth is "normal" and convenience is some kind of God-given right. JA M ES W IL S O N Town will eventually regret council's OPA 198 decision As a landowner and resident on Bumhamthorpe Road. I was pretty disgusted by the councillors who voted against OPA 198. The ones who voted in favour of OPA 198 are the honest councillors, who have the guts to do what they know is required, even when they don't like what they are voting for and when it means voting against the unreasonable or unin formed wishes of the people who elected them. I know most of the councillors pretty well and I think that they all realize that all they have accomplished is to hand responsibility for the problem over to the Ontario Municipal Board. What a week-kneed pandering bunch of politicians; pass ing the buck. If they don't like those words. I challenge them to give one good reason why they voted against Oakville retaining some control over the process. Being elected means taking leadership responsibility and sometimes, making unpopular decisions. I have been disappointed in Mayor Ann Mulvale. who allowed this monkey trial to go on so long and at so great a cost. It's not like her to lose control of a process like she did here. She came through in the end though, and I congratulate her for voting in favour of OPA 198. She knew the lay of the land and she knew that she may have lost some votes, but she did the right thing regardless. The Beaver was right on when it pointed that the objec tions to OPA 198 are being directed to the wrong level of government and far too late. By the way. has anyone investigated how our regional councillors from Oakville voted when the Halton Official Plan was amended to designate the OPA 198 lands for devel opment in the first place? OPA 198 should have been passed since it could have been appealed to the OMB by anyone with the conviction to do so. At least we would have had a position. Now, the Town has simply taken its bat and ball and gone home to let the other children play the rest of the game their way. I predict that the people who objected to OPA 198 the most will be much less happy with what the OMB will do now relative to what the outcome would have been if OPA 198 had been passed. I just hope that the developers will leave my family and my neighbours in peace for at least another 10 years. D A V ID B A Z A R Residents have right to protect their community I suppose it could be true -- If only we "well-meaning, overly idealistic residents" had stayed home and let the developers do their job. they wouldn't be taking us to the OMB now. We'd have OPA 198. And we'd have 55,000 more residents, 35,000 more employees, at least 55,000 more cars: we'd have more subdi visions and big box stores; we'd have worse air quality than we have now. (And you did read about the recently-published air pollution study showing that anyone living in urban Canada might as well be married to a cigarette smoker, didn't you?) We'd probably still be wondering exactly where those environmental features are and when they'd be put on a map. And how about that Trafalgar Moraine? Maybe it would be paved by now, who knows? And I suppose our creeks would be drying up soon. And I hate to think of the rare and endangered wildlife that would be losing their homes, not to mention the other 220 species of wildlife who would be out of a home. Well, I say, why don't the developers just stay home and let the residents of Oakville do their job? The residents of Oakville have the job o f protecting their community from what we see as a serious threat to our quality of life, our environment and our children's future. As far as I understand it, we live in a democ racy. The majority of our councillors democrat ically voted to send OPA 198 back because they fell it didn't protect our public interest. Why aren't the developers respecting coun cil's vote and accepting the democratic process? And just for the record, why does it appear that our community newspaper is blaming the residents for this situation, instead of applaud ing them for trying to make a better world for our children? I don't get it...w hy isn't our community newspaper questioning the developers -- those who have chosen to disregard the wishes of the people who live in this town? R EN EE S A N D E LO W S K Y Wildlife must be protected for future generations I was dismayed about your editorial concern ing council's vote on OPA 198. I have rarely encountered such small-mindedness in a "newspaper" and from those pretending to be informed journalists. You attack residents for being concerned with the future of their town and expecting that publicly-elected Council members will actually serve the public. You make pointless comments about cars -- as if the editorial staff of the Beaver were immune from automobiles. You criticize citizens for turning to local government to help solve crucial local issues. Should that not be the primary arena of public debate? You may wish to consider some of the fol lowing points in formulating an editorial policy in this matter. First, defence of the environment is a necessity for quality of life in Oakville and in our society in general. A 20% greenspace/rural balance is reasonable. Second, protecting wildlife areas such as the Trafalgar Moraine means stringent and conse quential safe-guards; it does not mean reducing them to gutters and small spaces between strip malls and dense housing development. The recent revelations of the provincial govern ment's duplicity concerning development on the Oak Ridges Moraine should be a dire warning to anyone who wants to trust the province in these matters. Any idiot can pave over valuable natu ral lands -- and many have done so! But it takes people of vision, courage and responsibility to protect sensitive and necessary wildlife areas for our quality of life today and for that of future generations. Which are you? Your editorial opposition to the clear and reasonable necessity of preserving rural, moraine, forest and wetland areas -- a goal, which seems self-evident to any thinking person, reminds me of Johnathan Swift's obser vation that a truly good idea can be recognized by the fact that the dunces are in confederacy against it. REV. D R . F R IT Z T R A U G O T T K R ISTB E R G S No safeguard from developers You state in your recent pro-developer editorial that the unaltered OPA 198 was the way to go. Well it was not; for one thing, it lacks the mapping of vital corridors for wildlife and the equally vital linkages between sensitive areas about which developers don't care a fig! The notion that second ary planning would have filled those gaps is a pipedream -- as if developers resist the temptation to water down each and every "secondary safeguard" shooting them down like clay pigeons at their leisure. Their investments in agricultural properties in 80 per cent of Oakville multiplied and turned into vast riches thanks to rezoning. Growing numbers of residents are demanding green protection in the last remaining 20 per cent o f our town. Nobody contemplates expropriation -- it remains the property of the developers -- just so that they do not bull doze it, pave it, drain it or cut it down. A L F R E D D O B E LL Pud , NUMBER 10S u ^R E Y ou By STEVE NEASE are You OKAY, WHISPER W SpER . MD? HENEEDSj You OVER on THE BENCH.' m % sA m x? no, I will ' NOT GoSET You something WWTISIT B U D D Y ?a FR O MTHE S N A C K B A R /; ft