Mr. Lima’s wonderful letter in the last issue was good for a few smiles. I believe it was the world-famous philosopher Alfred E. Newman who said something like, “~Worriers of the world unite – you have nothing to lose but your sanity.”
Mr. Lima makes the valid point with respect to the “Taking back the Bruce” letter – how can you take back something that was never yours in the first place? His second valid point is that the inconvenience we have to endure for a few short weeks each year as we share our home when the world arrives to visit is really not so bad. In reality, the new folks leave no lasting damage. The cliffs, the breezes and the water haven’t changed in a thousand years. And for those staying awake at night at the thought of poop in the woods let’s remember that the bears do the same and we happily bring 1000s of grass cattle up here each spring who don’t use the non-existent portable potties either.
And let’s have a thought for other human beings in this covid season when our fellow man is forced to vacation within the province. Maybe a little sympathy for the family with small children who have to park miles down the road and can’t find a washroom, an ice cream, a restaurant, or shelter if it rains. Thank God it’s been such a sunny summer! Aren’t we lucky to live here instead of skirting around the edges of the place after a long hot and tiring ride from Toronto?
Along the same lines, all the concern and confusion and worry about E/H and building permits may be misplaced as the term E/H (Environmental Hazard) seems not fully understood. I was involved when the program was instigated on agricultural lands some 30 years ago. E/H means that there is a hazard presented by the environment to the landowner. Such lands were determined very approximately by Provincial Committee using old aerial photographs without any ground checks. Such a hazard would have to be ameliorated before a building permit was issued to prevent a safety hazard to the landowner. For example a new barn in a low-lying area might require tile drainage, moving a ditch, or hauling fill in, etc. before a permit would be issued. So no worries, the Township is correctly on top of the situation and following the dictates of the Province.
I’m not sure why development of private land, i.e. cottage building, should be an issue to “worry about” – to refuse a person the right to build on his lot would have the effect of reducing the value of the lot to near zero. This is not permissible in a free country. While I can empathize with neighbours when previously vacant lots are built on, one can hardly complain when a landowner builds a cottage like we have. And I’m sure everyone agrees that no one is entitled to a private park on the back of their neighbour.
Going forward maybe it would help lower concerns about how others are conducting their affairs if we change the verbiage from the contentious word “development” to – building cottages for the kids and grandkids. – There, doesn’t that sound better and more noble?
Secondly, we could seek to avoid confusion and blood pressure increases by not using fluff words like “needing sustainable development” to describe anything we don’t like. The term was developed in the 80s to describe renewable resources like forestry and fishing. It’s a stretch to attempt to use the term to restrict a woman from building on her own lot – like the rest of us already did. (Of course, we could all move away and turn the whole place into National Park as I have heard suggested? ha-ha)
In terms of natural features and such, a huge percentage of the peninsula is Parkland or owned by Conservation entities. We need room for the two-legged animals too. Don’t they have intrinsic worth just like an alvar?
Regards,
Kevin Doyle
Dorcas Bay
