'~~ ~~ 78~.>;.f PUI. Y*A([ -A1AfWA, P ýj 4q~ 'r' PAGE 6, WIIBFREE PR.ESS, WEDNESDAY,JLY2;18 e w e Published every Wednesday By 677209 Ontario Inc. Phone:668-6111; Doug Anderson Publisher The Free PresiBuilding VOICE OF THE COUNTY TOWN L The only Whitby newspaper Independently owned and operated by Whitby residents for Whitby residents. 131 Brock Stret North, P.O. Box 206, Whitby, Ont. Maurice Plfher Editor Peter Irvine w Advertising Manager Alexarira Sliron.-,: Production Mañá er The good news; we suppose, is that only one beach area in Durham Region is posted as unsafe for swimming. That's an improvement over last year when more beach areas were declared unsafe because of high fecal coliform bacteria counts. The bad news is that the only unsafe swimming area in Durham is right in Whitby, the.one between the yacht club and the psychiatric hospital. Worse, the Town has plans for that beach as part of its future harbor area redevelopment -, improve the beach area, make it a place to which area residents wiIl go, and go to again and again. Now those plans should include measures to at For the, future least attempt to keep the water safe. Runoff fróm nearby Lynde Creek appears to be a contributing factor to the problems at that Whitby beach area, according to the Durham Department of Health, which cites agricultural runoff as well as storm sewer runoff as some of the sources of fecal colifrm bacteria, along with nature's<contribution. Perhaps methods of diverting runoff elsewhere could be considered to at least reduce bacteria. It's n guarantee in hot, wet weather, but it might someday be investigated, acted upon and later pay off. The existing beach area was little used anyway, if known at all, by area resident4. But future improvements to the beach as part of the grand recreationai redevelopment plan for the area, and cleaner water could change al that. And Whitby might be saved the predicament of Toronto residents unable to bathe in their unsafe lakeshore water during much of a hot summer. LETTERS PROM OUR READERS Anderson St. residents' concerns ignored by'Kangaroo Council' To the editor: It would seem rMost appropriate at this time to introduce a newly designed logo identifying the Whitby Kangaroo Council (WKC) which better represents our much esteemed Whitby council. I assure you it is indeed in order, especially in view of the decision to push through draft approval of the Group II & River Realty development. It is bounded by Taunton Rd., Garden St., the new Dryden Blvd, and Anderson St. Legitimate and serious .concerns by affected Anderson St. residents have been essentially ignored regarding ecological, environmental and high risk of future flooding along with the safety of children when spring run-otf makes it a hazardous area. Let's take a closer look. Here we have a situation where a group of Whitby residents are going to be inundated by noisy construction vehicles, earth- movers and bulldozers, dirt, mud and foul pollutants for a period of about five or six years. We have already put up with construction for four years on Anderson St. This is not only due to the very large Group II Development to the west of our homes but now we see applications for another development on the east side of Anderson St. We add to this Anderson St. scheduled to be tom up to make it wider...and to top it all off it is a certainty that our wells will be polluted by stormwater outflow into Pringle Creek from this development. It does seem only lair and reasonable that the developer should pay to ensure that these affected residents be given some compensation for such gross inconvenience and interruption of lifestyle and enjoyment of their property for such a long period of time. The developer, of course, will stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is good, business is business. However, in this particular case it would be at the expense of the affected Anderson St. residents and, ultimately, the Whitby taxpayer. I am not opposed to development, per se, but, I certainly question this kind of irresponsible, rushed through approval as in this case. Most unfortunately Whitby council shows very little interest in the broader future of the Town. They are quite willing to suffer the consequences of "longterm pain" in exchange for "short term gain," by the given carte blanche to run rough-shod over impacted residents. In this instance, the developer is from Niagara Falls, Niagara Region does not permit any developer to purchase or own property within 30 metres of a stream or river, yet he can come here and freely dump stormwater and all kinds of other pollutants into Pringle Creek, which incidentally runs through private property in some places. A couple of questions for council...Why did the mayor of Whitby strenuously stifle a report (which was never seen by the planning dept.) that was technically crucial and required by the Region of Durham? It was rejected on the basis that the Town did not commission it, yet, the developer was permitted to selectively use parts to fortify his request to rush through draft plan approval. This report addressed hydrogeological, soil conditions and a survey of private wells of nearby residents. How could a planning dept. recommend to council that they approve the draft plan when they did not have all of the required infôrmation before them? The residents of Anderson St. N. only want to be treated fairly. We could not even rely on the ward councillor to help protect us. Councillor Joe Drumm sold out people who for many years helped to keep him in office. Ie was applauded at one committ0e meeting where he stated that Anderson St. N. looked like a war zone and was a disgrâce due to irresponsible developers. But, in council where it really counted,,as usual, no guts. Councillor Batten claims we have enjoyed our homes long enough and he has 'decided We should now live like second-class SEE PAGE 23 Designation of Lynde house irritates resident To the editor: (Copy of letter to the Town of Whitby) Dear sirs: This letter will voice my per- sonal objection to the designation of the property known as "Lynde House" to a historical building. There can be no doubt that this house is of some significance to the Province for its style and grace. However, its new location and the circumstances surround- ing this building, as an attraction subject to a public admission fee, irritates me to no end. The citizens of Durham Region have already paid hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars to move and support this facility and now we are asked to support its commercial value as a cheap amusement park lure. Part of the contract to move and use this house should natur- ally have said that it must be kept in original condition and maintained by its new owners at their expense. These funds should be derived from the Cullen' Gardens admission fee. This application is an insult to the intelligence of the taxpayer. If and when Cullen proceeds with his "Prettiest Street in Ontario" project, his plan is to relocate churches and other historical buildings to the new site and get them to pave the way for new retail shops. Is it your intention to so allow these buildings te be designated histor- ical monuments so that he may apply for the obvious grants and oans available to maintain these structures? The shopkeepers will be paying a monthly rent and probably a percentage of their gross sales for this structure maintenence. My argument is simple. Other historical homes in the area are well maintained by their owners and need no support. They.collect no entrance fee and are not open to the public. Their owners have accepted this responsibility to keep these-structures as original as possible without commercial support. If they collected a fee for viewing I should object to their designation as well. Being in business for myself I can tell you that every acquisition I make has to be a paying pro- SEE PAGE 23 LETTERS The Whitby Free Press welcomes letters to the Editor on any subject of concern to our readers. Letters should be brief and to the point - rarely more than 300 words. All letters must be accompanied by the name, address and phone number of the writer; however, on request, your name may be withheld from publication if we agree that there is a valid reason. The paper reserves the right to reject or edit all letters. Send to: The Editor, Whitby Free Press, Box 206, Whitby, Ontario LN5S1 or drop through our mailslot at 131 Brock St. N.