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

- rt i •»'*' Section Two The Canadian Statesman, Bowmanville, Wednesday, May 4,1994 3 Letters to the Editor ; I: $ Dangerous Stretch of Road Dear Sir: Last Saturday, April 30th, a serious serious car accident occurred on Simpson Simpson Avenue near the entrance to Soper Soper Creek Park. This is the latest in a series of incidents on this stretch of road. The residents of Simpson Avenue have been trying for 30 months to get action from the Town to eliminate the dangers of this road. In September of 1991, we asked the Public Works department if anything anything could be done to reduce the volume volume and speed of traffic on the downhill bend of Simpson Avenue. We pointed out that there had already been a number of accidents and we were concerned that, one day, someone someone would be seriously injured. The town responded by conducting a traffic traffic survey. More than 3,100 vehicles use Simpson Avenue in a 24 hour period. The results of that survey showed that over 3100 vehicles used Simpson Avenue in a 24 hour period and that during the morning and evening peaks, only 15 vehicles out of 530 observed the warning speed signs. More than 60% were driving at speeds in excess of the legal limit. (We have been told that the volume of traffic has grown considerably since then and will continue to grow). Apart from sending a letter to the Durham Regional Police asking their enforcement staff for assistance, nothing happened. Towards the end of 1992, following following several small accidents and numerous numerous "near misses" involving local householders, the residents, mounted a petition which went to council in December of that year. The petition, signed by 33 residents, suggested several alternatives to make the road safer. The alternative preferred by the residents was to change the profile of the bend to improve sight lines for vehicles coming from either direction and to allow safer exiting from residents' residents' driveways. The petition was well received by council and the residents were encouraged encouraged when a consultants study was approved. Totten Sims Hubicti Associates issued the results of their study, followed by an "information centre" on September 15th, 1993 at the town hall. Residents were shown the results of the study and asked to record their opinions on a number of comprehensively researched alternatives. alternatives. The majority chose a recommendation recommendation similar to the one which they had first suggested in the petition. petition. Early this year we attended a meeting with the Director of Public Works, Walter Evans, at which he indicated indicated that the consultant's recommendation recommendation was not suitable and that his department was recommending that Simpson Avenue be straightened and re-united with its other half of the south side of Baseline Road. He also indicated that he was encouraged by the possibility of funding this project project under the Federal Government's Infrastructure program. In his report to the General Purpose Purpose and Administration Committee on February 7th, 1994, Mr. Evans concluded: i) Simpson Avenue is a collector road and traffic on it will increase over time; ii) The existing alignment on Simpson Avenue is not acceptable; iii) The residents' concern about safety are valid, and iv) The safety concerns cannot be solved by signs and enforcement. A few weeks later we were informed informed that this project was included on the Public Works Department's submissions for the infrastructure )ject and was their highest priority. Then, at a council committee meeting, where the Infrastructure proposals were being discussed, the Works Department's position was reversed reversed and the Simpson Avenue project project was completely removed from their submission. Once again, a small delegation attended attended a council meeting to ask for the decision to be changed. The delegation delegation received a sympathetic hearing hearing but, apart from the Mayor asking for the Director of Works to provide a report on alternatives, no action followed. followed. Most of the traffic is coming from the new developments to the north of King Street who are using Simpson pr t as a short cut to the 401. We are told that there is nothing that can be done to improve the width of Liberty St. as this is owned by the Province and Simpson is going to be increasingly used as a major north/south arterial road. However, we are also informed that there is nothing in the immediate or 5 year plans to improve the road. It's only a matter of time before someone is killed on this stretch of road. The Mayor, Councillors and Department of Public Works all know that a serious problem exists but still do nothing. What does it take to get some action in this town? We have petitioned council, attended numerous numerous council meetings, met with staff, written letters and have received received several encouraging but totally totally misleading reports. Here we are, two and one half years and several accidents later and still no progress. When the inevitable fatality occurs, occurs, what will the Town of Claring- ton's legal argument be in defence of a culpability suit? To those who use Simpson Avenue Avenue regularly, please remember that even police cruisers have lot control on this stretch of road. Reduce your speed and drive as you would wish others to drive in YOUR neighbourhood! neighbourhood! Help us to make our road safer - the Town doesn't appear to care! Sincerely Alan Tibbies Council Praised Re: Lap Dancing Dear Editor: I was pleased with your article in "The Independent" April 16th concerning "Council Supports Opposition Opposition to Lap Dancing." With everything having to be "politically correct," it is nice to know that our Clarington Council has backbone by standing up against such activity in our area. Yes, Councillor Councillor Dreslinski, it would be wonderful wonderful to have a by-law regarding this. Carol Haluka, concerned resident Dear Gord Mills, Durham East MPP May 4,1994 It has come to my attention through a number of media reports that you will be voting against the province's bid to create same-sex benefits benefits for female couples and male couples. couples. I truly can't believe it. Personally I think this could be your min if you ignore the number of same sex couples. There are many same-sex couples. I know of a number of same-sex couples who live in Durham East, have businesses or-are employed here, shop here, raise their children here, pay taxes here and intend on retiring here. In fact, I know of a few who even voted for you. While most people get squeamish when the word gay or lesbian is used, many people do not. Some people prefer to use words like "degenerates," "queers," "deviants" "deviants" and other terms that I can't bring myself to write. Gord, it has been reported, that you are not keen on voting on a bill which would make it legal for men and women to claim their same sex partners partners for benefits, because of what other other people may say about you. It has been reported in a local daily that if you voted "yes" "people would say 'there goes that guy that supports the queer people'" when you walk down the street. So, what? Does it really matter, Gord? I mean, it isn't like people don't already already say mean things about the Rae government and all the NDP'ers. However, that is just politics, right? You say you will vote against the bill due to go before the legislature in the fall despite your own beliefs. Well, Gord, it would be against a lot of others' beliefs as well and not just the gay and lesbian population either. either. A lot of straight folks support gay, lesbian rights, too. Don't cave into those who put on the "holier than thou" attitudes, Gord otherwise known as the vocal minority- minority- One would think that if Rae's government government is looking to make things fair for people, why should same-sex couples couples be penalized for loving someone who is of the same gender? One couple I know who live in your constituency would certainly be better off if one woman could be given given the same spousal benefits as heterosexual heterosexual couples get automatically. It is time to toss heterosexual privilege privilege out the window. While some people will get upset, and I am sure there will be at least one letter coming from a certain minister in Bowmanville, I need to say: what's the difference? Sure, some people will say it's the sex thing. Well, I have only one thing to say to these people who can't get their minds off sex--don't think about it! I'm pretty dam sure most lesbians or gays don't think about how straights have sex. Some folks think that by allowing same-sex benefits, every lesbian and gay person will come out of the closet. closet. I don't think so. The fear of being shunned by the community, work mates, employers will keep many people in their closets. Of course, there will be those who may already be out at work who will say, "Finally, I can get benefits for Wendy" or "Don." Many straight-laced, "I can smell a queer 10 miles away" folks fear that once same-sex couples are allowed to have benefits, the insurance companies companies will go bankrupt paying for medicines medicines and care of AIDS patients. Tap, tap. Excuse me, but that is a definite load of malarkey. Gord, you probably already know that not every gay or lesbian has AIDS. People don't scream bloody murder murder when heterosexual couples need benefits for a terminally ill child or for a spouse. Getting back to where I started Continued on Page 4 by Rick James Tax Tales from the Crypt Nothing drives the general public crazier crazier than stories about tax dollars being wasted by the government. Our office recently received a publication publication entitled, The Taxpayer, which promotes promotes the responsible and efficient use of tax dollars. In the publication are a number number of horror stories about government spending, borrowing, and the spiraling debt that Canada is accumulating. The nature of the publication requires it to paint a very unpopular picture of governments. governments. With that in mind, here are excerpts excerpts which will make you ask, "How could this happen?" High Taxes and Welfare Helle Hulgaard's decision to quit her $41,500 job with the Metropolitan Housing Authority last year caused quite a stir. Normally, such events are not newsworthy, newsworthy, as thousands quit government jobs each year. However, Ms. Hulgaard's situation situation was unusual. She quit her job to go on welfare. Hulgaard made the move because so much was being taken off in taxes, she felt she would do better on welfare. Though she will make $250 a month less on welfare, welfare, this difference is worth it, particularly particularly when she no longer has to pay for work- related costs such as clothes, transportation transportation and daycare. Only in Canada You Say! Just in case you think bureaucratic mix- ups are purely a Canadian phenomena, read on. Roger Spillman recently bought a radio amplifier at a salvage auction in Lakeland, Florida. He paid $97 for it, but couldn't make it work, so he phoned the manufacturer manufacturer for instructions. As a result of his call, a furor broke out that was heard all the way to the White House. Apparently, it was a device used by the President of the U.S. in case of nuclear nuclear war to send commands to that country's country's nuclear arsenal. This vital piece of military equipment was worth $470,000 (US) and came complete with gold connectors. connectors. An internal investigation revealed that two of the amplifiers had been sent to an airforce base in California. Somehow, one of them made its way instead to Florida, where it was eventually auctioned off. One Used Flying Hotel The new Liberal government has announced announced plans to sell an A-310 VIP Airbus. The Department of National Defence purchased the jet for $53 million from Canadian Airlines in 1992. The jet was to be used to transport then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and other cabinet cabinet ministers on lengthy trips. The government spent an additional $3.5 million to renovate the plane so it would include an executive office, conference conference room, showers and sleeping quarters. The plane, however, was never used by the Prime Minister, and the decision was made to sell it. Unfortunately, the price for this type of aircraft has fallen since its purchase and there's little demand for an aircraft changed into a flying hotel. In fact, the government may be forced to renovate it back into a regular passenger jet in order to sell it, with a potential loss of about $7 million in all. Goodbye to $600,000 Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's farewell tour through four European capitals in May of last year cost taxpayers nearly $600,000, according to records obtained by the Ottawa Citizen. The tour, which featured stops in Paris, London, Bonn and Moscow, cost $465,000 in accommodation and travel expenses. expenses. This included $34,287 for phones, and $35,737 for rental of transportation equipment. Unfortunately, the costs did not stop there. The Department of National Defence supplied an Airbus for the tour, and taxpayers had to fork over nearly $130,000 in total flight costs. The trip was controversial to begin with. Mulroney had already announced his resignation, the Tories were in the process of nominating a new leader, and a federal election was just months away. This caused many to question, the value of such a tour. These are just a few of the annoying, yet entertaining tales found in The Taxpayer. Oh, by the way, in the time that it's taken you to read this column, the federal debt has increased by more than $50,000. And finally... Many people have asked why I didn't respond to Gord Mills' personal attack on me in last week's Statesman. Quite simply, simply, it's not worth my time to resort to name-calling. From experience, I've found that those who resort to questioning someone's integrity usually pay for-their mistake. Well, Gord Mills, quickly found out that politicians are only one sentence away from oblivion when he referred to homosexuals as queers by saying, "every- time you walk down the street, people would say, 'there goes that guy that supports supports the queer people.'" He quickly tried to cover his tracks by saying, "I never called them that. I was saying that's what other people would say." I assume he meant his constituents when he said, "that's what other people- would say." If that's the case, Gord owes everyone of his constituents an apology for such an accusation. As for Gord questioning my integrity and the truth contained in any of my columns, I guess he and his government are just victims of accurate reporting. 'Ml