PAGE 4, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1981, WHITBY FREE PRESS whtby 'r Voice of the County Town Michael Ian Burgess, Publisher - Managing Editor 'ie only Whitby newspaper independently owned and operated by Whitby residents ror Whitby residents. Published every Wednesday by M.B.M. Publishing and Photography Inc. Phone 668-611Il The Free Press Building, 131 Brock Street North, P.O. Box 206. Whitby, Ont. MICHAEL J. KNELL Community Editor MARJORIE A. BURGESS Advertising Manager mailing Permit No. 480 Council's Jovial decisioi There is no disputing the fact that Whitby needs and wants development of all kinds. However, there is a proposai for a commercial development that ls not in the best interests of the people of the Town of Whitby. On July 20, 1981 Whitby Town Council turned down a zoning application by Jovial Investments Limited and its partners that would have seen a commercial development take place to the east of Bowman Ave. north of Dundas Street East. This proposai called for the construction of a 21,000 square-foot Canaqian Tire outlet in the nor- thern half of the property bordering Crawforth Ave. and Elizabeth Cres. The residents of the area vigourously opposed this development and won the support of council. Now, Jovial has decided to take its case to the Ontario Municipal Board in the hopes of overturn- ing council's decision. The proposai was turned down for two reasons. Firstlya Canadian Tire outlet does not (according to several opinions) fit the special purpose com- mercial designation and secondly, that the Some of the so-called tax loopholes closed by the new federal budget, are not worth shedding tears over. The fact that income averaging annuities will no longer be deductible, and that personal service corporations will now be subject to the full corporate tax rate, means that the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Argonauts and the Blue Jays may soon have no one playing for them. But given their won-lost records recently that may not deprive the Toronto fan of very much at all. The fact that company cars and interest free loans will become fully taxable benefits cer- tainly raises cain with my own personal tax situation, but I can't argue very much with the principal, which I think is a just one. Like most of the loopholes that were shut with a nasty clanging sound on budget night, those two closings tend to hit the well-to-do rather than the down-and-out. But there was one loophole that Mister MacEachen closed which is going to cause a lot of grief to those who can least afford it. Stated boldly, and I quote from Misier MacEachen's own little booklet, called "the budget in brief", it goes like this: "deductions for support payments to non-resident dependants will be limited to payments made to a taxpayer's spouse and children." The word has come down that there was a lot of abuse of the previous provision, which allowed deductions for non-resident dependants of any kind. And so, because a few people abusèd that provision, all of those supporting mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts overseas are going to be made to suffer. I have had a despairing letter from a man who is supporting his wife's family in Poland. He writes, "without this deduction, we would never have been able to send them this essential food. We have done without many. things to provide this, things which you would consider essential for survival. What are we left this year - since the budget proposes to eliminate this deduction from us? Are we to allow our parents to starve, without meat! Please ask the government to change its position, or modify it somehow." Well, I'm asking, but I don't expect to get an answer. Surely, if Internai Revenue believed it was being cheated -on this deduction, the first step would have been to put the burden of proof on the taxpayer claiming the deduction, never not to disallow it entirely. This one doesn't touch the well-to-do. It puts thumbscrews on people who merely wish to keep other people alive. That's not news, but that too is reality. development would cause almost insurmountable traffic problems. And for these reasons, this publication must side with the concerns of the area residents and oppose the proposai. The traffic issue alone should be just cause for rejecting the proposai. During the peak traffic hours it is virtually im- possible to make a.left-hand turn from Dundas Street East onto Bowman Ave. It is also almost impossible to make the left-hand turn from Bowman Ave. onto Dundas Street East. Dundas Street (otherwise known as Highway 2) is a major arterial road iinking the Town of Whitby with other municipalities in the Region of Durham namely the City of Oshawa to the east and the Town of Ajax to the west. This intersection is also close to Thickson Road where the town already boasts some fine major commercial enterprises. People from ail over the region come to this area for shopping and in so doing create a heavy flow of traffic. These roads are already overloaded and the ad- dition of another commercial development in the vicinity could only add to the problems. The other major issue in this situation is what exactly does special purpose commercial mean? According to Durham Region's official plan, special purpose commercial is a designation given to those enterprises that are used by the consumer on an occasional basis. Therefore, a supermarket or a department store would not warrant this kind of designation. As interested and reasonably informed laymen, we would have to say that a Canadian Tire store does not fit a special purpose commercial desig- nation. This retail chain is famous for supplying all kin- ds of goods and services relating to hardware (tools, plumbing and building supplies, paint, etc.) and automotive services (including the repair of cars and the sale of parts). A Canadian Tire store is not a facility that would only have an occasional use by the consumer. The consumer is forever needing parts for his car of to have it fixed as well as hardware that he might use for doing those odd jobs around the house. was right Many people would visit a Canadian Tire store regularly. It is not like a furniture store that might only be patronized once a year. One thing that this publication hopes the OMB will do is to define once and for all what special purpose commercial designation means. If one really thinks about it, the location in question is probably not a great one for Canadian Tire. Under the Jovial plan, it would not even be close to Dundas Street. It would not have frontage onto a major arterial road (which is required for a special purpose commercial designation), and would sit in the middle of a residential area. Surely, the store would be more visible if it were located on Thickson Road opposite to the Whitby Mall or in some other Whitby location that would give it good visibility to the consumer (where already properly zoned land is available). But a Canadian Tire representative said a Thickson Road location was out of the question because that would be in Oshawa. This publication wants Canadian .Tire to develop a larger facility in the Town of Whitby and we want to do everything in our power to en- courage them to do so. However, we feel that the Jovial proposai is not the best one either for Canadian Tire or for the residents of the Town of Whitby. It is our fervent hope that Canadian Tire will decide to build elsewhere in the town. We also hope that Jovial can present a proposai that will enable them to develop the land they own, taking into consideration the concerns of the area residents. Planning is an art, not a science, and the developer or the planners should be flexible when dealing with this piece of land. But perhaps even more important, a good corporate citizen, especially one that relies on retail business, should not try to ram a project down the throats of local residents when it is ob- viously very- objectionable and other alternatives are available. Whitby council made a wise decision refusing to allow this proposai, and we can only hope that our local council fights vigor- ously to uphold their decision and their credibility at the O.M.B. and if necessary the Supreme Court.