|
Feature Article - July 27, 2006
|
|
Beautifying Verona Here’s a big thank you to all the people who sweated in the dirt to make
Susie Ralph organized the planting of flower barrels (bought by the VCA and tended by local businesses) that line the
I’ve noticed that it only takes a few places with flower displays to start a snowball of others in the village, and what a difference it makes to our sense of who we are! Inie Platenius While my heart truly grieves for the cutting down of mature trees on a quiet lake, I suspect there is a lot more going on at
While we may feel deeply offended that white man’s protocol may not have been followed, we must also admit that the legal system itself is not free of guilt. The North American Aboriginals do not deserve to be kept in a defensive position where they must continually be required to fight for the honor and dignity which is already rightfully theirs as forefathers of this country. - Peter Thomas Rivera The June 29th issue of the Frontenac News reported on the discussion at the previous council meeting about a possible bylaw permitting the use of ATVs on Township roads. This discussion was initiated by the Frontenac ATV Club. I am concerned that because the club is an organized group, it, and its members, will be the main source of opinion before council. Summary of my views: ATVs do not belong on public roads. ATVs on public roads are in competition for the right-of-way with much larger vehicles. ATVs do not have the many safety features built into, and required in, passenger and commercial vehicles. ATV riders are therefore much more vulnerable to injury than passengers in other types of vehicles. Then add in the behaviour of some ATV riders that I have observed over the years: no helmets, with children as passengers without helmets, travelling faster than the vehicle/road features support, driving (e.g., in the middle) as if the road was a private driveway. Then add in the nature of some of the roads in Central Frontenac: gravel roads that are much less than two lanes wide (and certainly, no shoulders), with blind hills and corners reducing visibility of oncoming traffic, soft dirt surfaces that are torn up by ATVs. Finally, there’s the legal/enforcement element: the OPP are not able to deal now with ATV activity which is clearly illegal, so why would enforcement be better when a bylaw allows ATV use of public roads and it’s a less clear issue of legal vs. illegal? It doesn’t make sense. ATV use of public roads is a public safety matter and any decision should be based on a wide consultation of taxpayers, not on the biased view of an interest group. Council should allow sufficient time for public input before it is prepared to make an informed decision. Response to the ATV Club’s views as reported in the Frontenac News 1. Statement: Patricia Dawson, the ATV Club’s secretary, pointed out that other townships permit certain kinds of ATVs driven by people with G2 or M2 licences. Response: Because one municipality does something, does not mean we should. We should consider our own unique circumstances, as well as the health and safety of all our residents and visitors. 2. Statement about the successful implementation of a bylaw in South Frontenac - the ATV Club representative said that the bylaw improved the situation because “Instead of ATVs riding illegally on township roads, they are riding according to safety regulations that can be enforced,” Response: “can be enforced” does not automatically mean “will be enforced”. 3. Statement about the issue of driving ATVs on gravel roads, Pat Dawson says that ATVs are expected to ride on the far right - on the shoulder if there is one, or on the road where necessary.’ Response: Similar to point #2, “are expected to ride on the far right” does not mean “will” do so. 4. Patricia Dawson cautioned council that they consider the will of the majority when they think about whether to pass an ATV bylaw. “Most of the people who live in your township year round and shop in the stores and volunteer in the fire departments are in favour of this,” she said, “you might want to consider their interests over those of a minority who might oppose it.” Response: First, where is the proof that the majority are in favour? Second, just because a majority approve of something that might be harmful to people does not mean that responsible elected officials should embed it in the law.
Several
weeks ago Mr. Robert Potts, Chief Negotiator and Legal Counsel for the
Algonquins of Golden Lake Land Claim issued a media statement in
response to the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation’s initiative of building
a Cultural Centre and Pow Wow grounds on Algonquin land near Mr. Potts has cobbled together a coalition of individuals and the Band Council of Pikwàkanàgàn in an effort save a failed process. At best the representation of so called “non-status” ANRs is questionable in that they have no other political responsibilities to their communities than going to negotiation meetings and collecting their per diem. The so called representative of “Ardoch” was never elected and his constituency consists of a mailing list stolen from the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and names borrowed from other ANRs. This representative and Mr. Potts have been challenged publicly on numerous occasions to resolve this issue with the legitimate Ardoch Algonquin First Nation but they both have refused. “Wrong time”? One begins to wonder when the right time will be to find the truth. The
present Algonquin negotiation team consists of six Band councillors
from the Pikwàkanàgàn community and one representative from some of the
other historical Algonquin communities. Some Algonquin communities have been ignored altogether. Why does this inequality exist? In
reality Band Council is a federal incorporation under the Indian Act;
in reality one branch of the federal government is negotiating with
another branch for Algonquin land. The Indian Act does not support the rights and title of Aboriginal people in
“Wrong time”? Let’s get rid of the Indian Act first in law and in our own minds before we negotiate with a government that still wields the instrument of oppression. The
Ardoch Algonquin First Nation was one of the first historical Algonquin
communities engaged by Pikwàkanàgàn 16 years ago at the beginning of
their land claim. Band Council was told by
This is the right time for our community to move forward. - Robert Lovelace Jenna
Lambert certainly is an incredible young woman. Proper
acknowledgement should also be given to Jenna's coach, Vicki
Keith. The raw passion of this amazing young lady was honed by
Vicki. She counseled Jenna regarding this challenge, the required
endurance, and the intense media engagement that would follow Jenna's
unquestionable landing at Request for CF Township Support for Road Maintenance The
Blue Heron Ridge Road Association welcomes this opportunity to clarify
and supplement the information in the article "Private road residents
open up dialogue with CF township", The Frontenac News, July 27, 2006. John
DuChene, Guenter Nitsche and Michael Wise approached Central Frontenac
Council, at its July 25, 2006 meeting, on behalf of our members, the
owners of the 76 properties accessed using Blue Heron Ridge and Thrush
Trail, to request that council enter into discussions regarding the
township contributing to the maintenance of those roads. Both
Blue Heron Ridge and Thrush Trail are public roads, as shown in Judge's
Plan 1608 and Plan of Subdivision 1751, they are not private roads.
They differ from most public roads in Central Frontenac in that they
are maintained by the local property owners rather than the township.
They are similar in that they are owned by the township, the township
has jurisdiction over them, they are freely available for public use
and the local property owners can neither limit nor control their use.
Private roads, on the other hand, are owned by individuals or
corporations, are not subject to the same government controls and are
not freely available for public use. Given the differences between
public and private roads, we do not believe it to be appropriate to
include the latter in our request. We
knew when we purchased our properties that the township is under no
obligation to maintain Blue Heron Ridge and Thrush Trail. However,
economic conditions have changed and expectations have evolved. Equity
and fairness are the bases of our request for township support. We are
not the only persons to benefit from the development that has taken
place along these roads. Our fellow township residents enjoy, with us,
the improvements in services funded by the resulting increases in tax
revenues and our township businesses benefit from an expanded customer
base. We are, however, the only persons paying to maintain them. This
is in addition to our contributing, along with all other property
owners, to township operations through municipal taxes. We are, in
effect, being levied a "surtax". We are not asking that the township cover the full cost of maintaining Blue Heron Ridge and Thrush Trail. Nor are we asking that the township roads department assume the additional burden of undertaking this work. We ask only that other Central Frontenac tax payers now share with us in the cost of maintaining these two public roads that are benefiting us all. We made
our request to council as property owners living on public roads. We
know that several matters pertaining to private roads are currently
under consideration by council; however, we see these as being distinct
from our request. To make progress on all matters, the distinction
should be maintained. We
cannot take credit for preparing the Report on Private Lanes. It was
prepared by township staff and presented to council by Heather Fox as
part of her Report to Council. We
appreciate the reception given us by council and their undertaking to
consider entering into a dialog on this matter. There are,
understandably, a number of issues council wishes to look into before
discussions can proceed, and we need time to obtain the information
requested by the mayor. We will follow up with council in a few weeks. Re: Development after… and before I have just read your article, “Private road residents open up dialogue with CF township” in this week’s “News” and would like to point out an error that occurred in a similar article, “Development after …and before” which appeared in the June 29th issue of The Frontenac News. There is a significant difference between the Blue Heron Ridge road in Central Frontenac, a private road and
The Sunday Lake Property Owners’ Association president was only asking for financial assistance to maintain a township road that has seen a large increase in traffic after the township put in the new boat launch. This increased traffic has resulted in higher maintenance costs for the residents and the association has felt it necessary to purchase insurance for the road. Jim Beam,
Bathurst Burgess Sherbrooke Township had history and pride Drummond/North Elmsley Township has some prominent new township entrance signs. Five stars to Drummond North Elmsley for showing pride in heritage and keeping the old township names. One sign is just outside
Driving to Balderson from
TVT has new township/tourism signage (grant money) with name, logo, and words "Support Local
Business". To me the message is mixed. I believe in supporting local
business, but I do not support the current township name and this
branding. There is a lot more to a community name than promoting
tourism. The old townships have almost 200 years of community and
family history and pride. BBS was a compromise to respect the old
townships when amalgamation swept Yes, "Welcome to
Catherine McCann Re: Permitting ATVs on Central Frontenac Township roads Foremost,
I think permitting ATVs to use township roads would be a benefit to
tourism. Presently, townships north, south and west of
Central Frontenac allow such use and I would suggest tourism in these
areas has benefited substantially. One only has to look at the
number of ATVs on trailers traveling north on Hwy 41 to confirm this
suggestion. I believe the Town of I would suggest that Gail Burgess allow some credit to the responsibility of ATV riders and their respect for the law. I certainly agree that ATVs will compete with vehicles for the right-of-way with larger vehicles. This happens today when two vehicles meet; however, I fail to see how the ATV will be any different. I also agree that ATVs don't have many built in safety features. Neither do motorcycles, yet they are not restricted from any road access. Not wearing helmets is a responsibility issue similar to the wearing of seat belts. I believe enforcement statistics indicate that in many provinces/areas, 10% or more of the drivers of cars and trucks still refuse to wear seatbelts or fail to do so all the time. Using Gail Burgess' argument against ATVs because some riders don't wear helmets is synonymous with prohibiting private vehicles from using these same roads because some drivers don't wear seatbelts or drive too fast. Again, using her same argument for enforcement, this prohibition against vehicles should be put in place immediately because we cannot expect police to be always available to do traffic enforcement, nor should we. Owner responsibility should not be confused with safety. The majority of ATV riders, like car drivers, are responsible - they wear helmets and visible clothing (traffic vests) and they respect the law. There are also those that break the law (fail to wear helmets / drive too fast) similar to many car drivers. However, unlike car drivers, such irresponsible behavior usually results in injury or death to the rider - not to innocent pedestrians or passengers, as is usually the case with irresponsible car or truck drivers. Finally, in terms of noise, the majority of ATVs are stock and contain mufflers designed to eliminate high decibel noise. The majority of ATV riders don't modify their muffler systems. Most motorcyclists or car/truck owners don't modify their exhaust systems either. Noise from any vehicle is annoying and that is part of traffic enforcement - not general prohibition against the vehicle itself. It
is time that municipalities gave respect to ATVs, their owners (many
whom are your neighbours and friends) and the fact that the Government
of Ontario has seen fit to pass laws allowing use of ATVs on provincial
highways and roads in general. Municipalities should also
consider the tourism benefits that legalizing ATV use would
provide.
|
|