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

FN | Use Of The "Idiot Tax" Durham - Region council last week pushed through a resolution calling on the provincial govern- ment fo changedegjslation to allow lottery profits to be used for construction and equipping of new homes for the aged. It was far from unanimous, however, the vote carrying by only a 16 to 11 margin. During the course of the debate there were good arguments put forward | as to why the provincial government should not use lottery profits for this purpose. » The arguments against were that providing aged and other health care facilities is the responsi- bility of each and every tax payer in this province, and the provincial government must recognize this basic principle in its taxation policies. Unfortunately, the economic situation in Ontario dnd the ever increasing demand for further essential services at this time over-rule the somewhat philo- sophical arguments about principles of taxation. The proliferation and success of lotteries, and the willingness of people to spend their dollars on the tickets, would indicate that the public appetite for gambling is far from being satisfied. And the profits are enormous. It may very well be an "idiot tax' as one member of Durham council called it last week. But nonetheless, it may also be a chance to take the financial squeeze off our health care services and institutions, without putting a further tax burden on the incomes and properties of everyday citizens, and the business and industrial sector. The Durham Region resolution will be circulated to' other regional municipalities, local MPP's, and social service associations. The provincial government seems to have little choice in the matter. While recreation and cultural facilities are needed, it is obvious that there are more pressing priorities for the spending of lottery profits. And quite possibly those profits would increase through the sale of more tickets if people knew that their money was going to be used for essential health care services. It may also be time for the government of this province to give serious thought to other forms of legalized gambling, and the profits for government that could be earned. While there are valid moral arguments to the contrary, it again has come down to a question of priorities and economic realities. There was recent reports that if New York State legalizes gambling, a major casino-type operation is planned for the Buffalo area with the hope of drawing patrons from southern Ontario. Ontario has reached the point where it can't afford not to be looking seriously at all the possibili- B ties. If John Q. Public wants to lay down a bet at an off-track wicket, or roll the dice or play the cards, that's his'decision. But it is time to put the "idiot tax' to use for essential services. ofed for such essential services as homes for the 1 z on?" rr" HURRICANE ULSTER 2 7 wv 77 er yy 7 7 A, << | vy No 77 bill ' [ ] MUNICIPAL POLITICS If you have never been involved in municipal politics, you should have a go. Run for anything from dogcatcher fo mayor. If you lose, it will be good for your ego. If you win, it will be good for your humility. I speak, as always from personal exper- ience. For two years I served on a town council. It was illuminating, if not very enlightening. ? I was elected, of course, by acclamation. As was everybody else on the council. So keen were the citizens to serve that some years, on nomination eve, we had to go down to the pub, drag a couple of characters out, and guide their hands while they signed up. When I was elected, I was present as a reporter. There were only five other people in the council chambers, so it was decided that T would be elected as the necessary sixth. Since I had already served on the executives of various moribund grgani- zations which had died forthwith, I agreed. It didn't die, as I'd hoped. The next year we were all re-elected. By acclamation. It was pretty heady stuff, at first. As a partner in a printing plant, and a newspap- erman, I was immediately appointed Chair- man of the Printing, Advertising, and ley Public Relations Committee of council. This meant that our firms automatically receiv- ed the contract for the town's printing and advertising, which we already had. The public relations part meant that I had to stop suggesting in the paper that the town council was made up of nitwits, nincompoops and nerds. Another chap, with a pretty good heating and plumbing business, was named Chair- man of the Interior Municipal Modification Committee. Heating and plumbing. ~~ -#ethird, who had a tractor, a back-hoe and a snowplow was appointed Chairman of the Public Works Department. He immediately introduced a by-law raising the rates per hour of such equipment. It passed, four to two. The opposition was from another councillor, a retired farmer, who also had a tractor and a threshing machine, which he thought could be converted to plowing snow. His brother-in-law voted for him. But these moments of power and glory soon faded. The conflict of interest became apparent, and there was no way out for a man of honour except to resign. It took me only two years to reach that conclusion. You may think that a fair time but it's not easy to walk away from a $75.00 a year stipend. The mayor made $150.00. As a reporter, I had been more interested in the conflicts that the interests. I had delightedly heard, and printed, one council- lor call another councillor a "gibbering old baboon." And watched the victim of the pejorative, a stripling of 78, invite the name-caller outside, stripping off his jacket during the exchange. Cooler heads prevail- ed. It was thirty-four below outside. Well, as you can see, as a member of that august body, the Town Council, I couldn't print that sort of thing. I had to report that the two councillors "had a difference of opinion." When I wrote that phrase and had to omit that one of the councillors was obviously in his cups, I knew I had to quit. All of this is a preamble to a thickish document I got in the mail the other day. It is a new by-law printed and dispersed (at what enormous cost I shudder) by our local town council. There are 39 numbered pages of legal inanities, and about an equal number of pages of maps of the town, equally unintelligible. As 1 said, the mailman delivered it, regardless of expense. A dozen kids could have covered the town in two hours, or stuffed them in the sewer. Despite my wide experience as a munici- pal councillor, or perhaps because of it, this by-law completely baffles me. The first thirteen pages are definitions. They tell us what is a lot, a yard (front) and a yard (rear), a garage, a building. They also inform the ignorant citizenry what a school is, a person, a restaurant, a motel, a boarding house. All alphabetically. There was no mention of "brothel" under the B's. The by-law tells us how high our fences or hedges can be. It tells us how high our houses can be. How many square metres of ® floor space we must have if we decide to ask Auntie Mabel, crippled' with arthritis, to share our dwelling. How many parking places we need for each establishment. Again no mention of either brothels or bootleggers. For most of the document, the by-law § dwells in metres, squared and decimaled. I know very few people over thirty who would know a metre from a maskinonge. Some- body on council must have cornered the market on metre sticks. Then this baffling. by-law moves into "hectares". What the heck is a hectare? To me, it's an ancient French (Canadian) piece of land about as accurate as an acre, which nobody understands either. Here's an example: RM2 uses are permitted as specified to a maximum of 550 persons per hectare." Is it a square mile? Is ita '"H! acre" wit' an accent? This is crazy. When I was a councillor, we ® could knock off three or four by-laws in a meeting, and everybody understood them. "Moved and seconded that there shall be no loitering in the cemetery, except by those who are among the dead, not the quick." That sort of thing. This big fat by-law is for the bird§. Or the lawyers. Not for us old municipal politi- cians. Remember what I suggested at the beginning of this column? Forget it. Otherwise you might end up in a 'Detached dwelling unit", which allows '3.2 persons per unit standard." Not two. Not four. 3.2.