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

A6 -The Oakville Beaver, Wednesday, February 4, 2004 EDITORIALS AND LETTERS Office Manager JILL DAVIS Editor in Chief MANUEL GARCIA Production Manager KELLY MONTAGUE Advertising Director RIZIERO VERTOLU Photography Director CHARLENE HALL Circulation Manager ROD 1ERRED Managing Editor THE OAKVILLE BEAVER IS PROUD OFFICIAL MEDIA SPONSOR FOR: [ C V * A v .& a T H E IllklllU m u 467 Speers Rd,, Oakville Ont. L6K 3S4 (905) 845-3824 Fax: 337-5567 Classified Advertising: 845-3824, ext. 224 Circulation: 845-9742 IAN OLIVER Publisher NEIL OLIVER Associate Publisher TERI CASAS C ram p mM fc nS rc p p n g Hm*. t B trin g to nP ac S tao prg M r« v CMn ffttrp ri* O y Paw t C c in g w o c d Y A tfQ iC c rrw A c n (ad M m . frrt o .ttr , Aun E W J C tfr G u a rd o a ru ro o i-cw /i G « Q r 9* t o < « n tr * c * r t* r t» c tr F tw P re s s , itrtbi R m m tlrx® S u v V o r f c liner O a k ** B o m t. OmtOe N «*. M M * .O w r S c m r tS O jrro ta nP al R u r* P jim e n k rO e m v k PtMaa^ T h f c W n K P te fc n O a n y G u a s fkrm n3'«/Trrfrt*V a^*F o r m e r*uia O ff o f* * *G u » 3 « n Recognized for Excellence by Ontario Community Newspapers Association Halton Hcalthcarc Y IMMW* o lO ak x M vmca J A th a u ^O VA Canadian Community Newspapers Association S3K>M5$ | o a k villc g alleries | m J u ^ fe M Fund U/feLCXJMF.ffc AGON m . MtlNrUi; C T M B f 4 1 fflK T iffl C V u M ftru t TV AUCTION S K Suburban Newspapers of America i J^Jwurd T h *0 »n * R IA L ISTA TI B O A R D o » r · · i « t»-t i\O dw L I O CK M PUBLIC L IB R A R Y Time to invest in the future It is high time the federal and provincial governments either put up or shut up when it comes the fate of the O akville Ford Plant. The warning signs are clear. According to Canadian Auto Workers (C A W ) economist Jim Stanford Canada has fallen from the fourth largest auto producer o f automobiles in the world in 1999 to eighth place. Over the last four years Canada has lost about 15 per cent of total pro duction in the auto industry and seen its share of the North American mar ket decline. American states are more than w illing to use taxpayer money to provide incentives to manufacturers, while M exico offers a steady stream of cheap labour for assembly plants. Unless both level o f governments are w illing to invest money in keeping industries like Ford in Canada, they are going to head south of the border to communities which are more w illing to pony up an ante to lure a manu facturing plant. As much as we dislike our governments giving corporate welfare to multinational corporations, the sad fact is the rules are changing and if Canada isn't w illing to adapt, if w ill be left on the sidelines. These aren't M cJobs we're talking about. These are well-paying jobs that help drive a healthy economy. Communities and state governments realize this and that's why they are more then w illing to provide incentives to lure these manufacturing industries south o f the border. At stake right now is an $800 m illion investment Ford is w illing to make in O akville to turn the truck plant into a state-of-the art flexible manufac turing facility. The technology, which hasn't yet been introduced into a Canadian plant, would allow the O akville operation to produce up to eight different vehicles and quickly shift production if demand for a model drops. Stanford says the plant would be a "jew el" in Ford's crown, which is why there is intense competition for the plant. No one is asking the federal or provincial governments to waste taxpay ers money by investing in a dying industry. The auto manufacturing indus try is healthy and is still one of the building blocks of a national economy. But if our federal and provincial politicians continue to dither with words and not actions, one of those key building blocks w ill be removed and the foundation of our national economy w ill be weakened. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Community rallied together Wednesday Jan. 28, could be described as an evening our communi ty rallied together. Our Town's Planning and Development Council completed its second session of listen ing to the public. Many individuals from both sides spoke, and often elo quently. Shortly after 9 p.m.. Council broke from the public requesting to go In Camera. About 45 minutes later they emerged with long time Councillor Fred Oliver delivering a lengthy motion which we believe has captured virtually all of the issues relating to this extremely important time in our Town's history. Before the vote, which was unanimous, all Council members had an opportunity to speak to the motion, and while this lasted for close to half an hour, what came forth was a common passion for our community, and its downtown, with reference to " it's as good as com munities get in North America." It was pretty moving to witness each council member and our mayor stand before the crowd signifying their endorsement of this motion with their recorded vote. Over the last few months council members have heard the message from hundreds of residents throughout our community, they have listened, and they have responded. The Planning Department's report has defended our Official Plan with its recommenda tions, and all have agreed that it is worth the fight to preserve our great heritage and character. Some of the key points of the motion: · That Council deny the develop ment proposal filed by the Daniels Group; · That Council's first priority is to uphold the Official Plan; ·That Council supports its residents as much as it is legally possible to do; · That a committee is struck with representatives from the four sur rounding ratepayer groups, two coun cilors, the Mayor, two members of Planning Staff, a member from Conservation Halton. and two repre sentatives from the developer with a goal to meet and attempt to reach con sensus respecting the long term use of the Sharkey's site, and more specifical ly; · To recommend to council for its consideration a mixed use residen tial/commercial building design with a building height and floor area that reflects the character of Downtown Oakville as set out in the Town's Official Plan; · To provide recommendations regarding #3 Lakeshore Road -- the public property just north of the bridge; · If this application proceeds to an Ontario Muncipal Board hearing, that planning staff have been directed by council to vigorously defend the Town's position to the greatest possi ble extent. We are indebted to all who respond ed with hundreds of letters and emails, and personal presentations at public meetings. Your individual thoughts on paper were sincere and most appreciated by all members of council and our planning staff. We are also very grateful for the tremendous support from the many Residents'Associations beyond the imme diate boundaries of the Sharkey's site. Thank you all again for playing such an important role in this process. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES OF THE WEST HARBOUR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, THE WEST RIVER RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION, THE OAKVILLE LAKESIDE RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION, AND THE TRAFALGAR CHARTWELL RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION Four-storey building can m ake profit for developers I refer to the editorial entitled Work towards compromise in the Oakville Beaver. Jan. 30 edition. I hold no strong opin ion on the redevelopment of the Sharkey's site. However, in the interests of seeing accuracy in the ongoing debate 1 feel compelled to point out that your editorial seems to be based on a muddled understanding of how the real estate market works in redevelopment situations as this. You appear to suggest that a purchaser of such a site has to make a reasonable return on its investment, and therefore the ratepayer opposition should be realistic and agree to a development with a higher density than four storeys. This reasonable return argument would only be relevant if Daniels had agreed to pay a fixed price in advance of knowing what amount of density would lie allowed. I am not privy to the details of the actual arrangement between Daniels and the current co-owners of the Sharkey's site. However, the normal market practice would be for Daniels to option the site for a period, while it goes through the planning process to determine how much density and what type of accommodation can be built. Once this has been determined it will acquire the site, paying the existing co owners a price calculated using a pre-determined formula based on the density achieved. It is unlikely that Daniels paid anything material for the option, given the time, energy and costs it has to expend in going through the planning process. Therefore, since Daniels' land acquisition cost is geared to the ultimate density achieved, it is fallacious to suggest that in order to achieve a reasonable return on its investment everyone should agree to a redevelopment with a higher den sity. The only way your editorial argument has any validity at all is if redevelopment was ultimately restricted to an extremely low density, and Daniels ended up expending many hundreds of thousands of dollars on the planning process. However, I suspect that even if redevelopment was limited to four storeys, and Daniels paid the existing co-owners a price for the site based on that density, it would still make a reasonable return. Clearly why the two existing co-owners are speaking out in favour of Daniels' plans for the site is that the price they will ultimately receive for the site is geared to the density achieved. Finally, I would suggest that simply because a couple of high-rises were allowed to the north and west of the site in a previous era, that is no reason by itself to justify another one today. One has only to look at the history of the downtown Toronto waterfront to see the tragic outcome of such an argu ment. ROB HAWKINS Hydro policy upsets reader How dumb is this? Here I am phoning Oakville Hydro to advise them of my upcoming change of address, and once I choose option # 7 ,1 believe, on their lengthy list of telephone answering options Moving -1am connected to a person, and I begin to tell her my information. I am forced to telephone, since they no longer attach the notice to their billing envelopes, for easy comple tion. The lady on the other end advises me that just like a new client, who is requesting service for the first time, I cannot provide them with the details over the phone, but I have to come into their office to complete what she described as an application. This, even though I have been a customer for many years. This is apparently a new policy that they have insitituted since December 1st, 2003. When I asked what their hours of operation were, in order to accomplish this, I was told 8.30 - 4.30 p.m., Monday to Friday. This is of course, totally inconvenient for me, who works daily in Toronto - as do many of their customers. I'm sure -and when I advised her of this, she said that several others had complained, too. I suggested that if they develop a policy of people having to come in to their office, they also ensure that the office is open for business at convenient times for their customers! They should at least be open on Saturday mornings, too, how ever, no degree of discussion was going to sway her from the implementation of the policy. The rub came, when the lady asked if I couldn't take time off to come in. I really don't intend to take time off to acco modate Oakville Hydro, just so I can tell them I 'm moving! Clearly, they need to re-examine this recent policy change - especially as it affects their long-time customers who are just attempting to advise them of a simple move. You may wish to let your readers be aware of this ridiculous situation, as I 'm sure it w ill affect many - apparently, anyone who is contem plating a move within the area serviced by Oakville Hydro. I invite Oakville Hydro to respond and advise the public how they will change this policy, and enable their customers to get their service transferred with as little disruption as possible. Moving is difficult enough already, without this added has sle - imagine if we had to personally attend the office of every one we have to advise of the change of address. BARRY KEIRSTEAD Snow plows shouldn't bury driveways I fully agree with Maria MacDonald's Jan. 21 letter regarding the snow plows. M y husband and myself are both seniors and every time there is a heavy snow fall and the snowplows eventually come around we are left with a wall of snow and ice across the front of our driveway. Because out house is on the curve of the road, they push all the snow in front of our house leaving behind a wall of snow and ice several feet high. I have tried asking the drivers many times to put the snow across the other side of the road away from everyone else, but they just ignore me and carry on driving. M y husband is 71 years old and should not have to risk his health by shoveling snow from off the road left behind by the snowplows. We pay our taxes to have our roads cleared of snow and ice not to have it dumped in front of our houses. It's time the Town of Oakville looked into the way our roads are being plowed. PAT FARRELL The Oakville Beaver is a member of the Ontario Press Coundl. The council is located at 80 Gould S t, Suite 206, Toronto. Ont. M5B 2M7. Phone (416) 340-1981. Advertising is accepted on the condition that in the event of a typographical error, that portion of advertising space occupied by the erroneous item, togeth er with a reasonable allowance for signature, will not be charged for, but the balance of the advertisement wiH be paid for at the applicable rate. The publisher reserves the right to categorize advertisements or decline. Pud are your m ew c o u r s e£ s THIS .< ? By STEVE NEASE How SAMMY? OKAY, I GUESS, 'cepT FbR .MATH. KNOW WHAT I -AND IF I DID Burr w eren T You faUND ABOUT MY HOMEWORK A TERRIBLE/--- ' MATH , / l S A I D MATH?, THAT EVERT DAY, STUDENT?I " it:" lF Ift\ID A m m o tf MATH WASNT. IN CLASS, AN Sa BAD/ fe l IF IA S K E D /7 , ' fbRHELP \> ' WHEN I m NEEDED IT.