HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 1995-02-01, Page 4Citizen 2NA
The North Huron
e
P.O. Box 429, P.O. Box 152, Publisher, Keith Roulston
BLYTH, Ont. BRUSSELS, Ont. Editor, Bonnie Gropp NOM 1H0 NOG 1H0
Phone 523-4792 Phone 887-9114 Sales Representatives,
FAX 523-9140 FAX 887-9021 Jeannette McNeil and Julie Mitchell
The Citizen is published weekly in Brussels, Ontario by North Huron Publishing
Company Inc.
Subscriptions are payable in advance at a rate of $23.00/year ($21.50 plus $1.50
G.S.T.) for local; $33.00/year ($30.85 plus $2.15 G.S.T.) for local letter carrier In
Goderich, Hanover, Listowel, etc. and out-of-area (40 miles from Brussels);
$62.00/year for U.S.A. and Foreign.
Advertising is accepted on the condition that in the event of a typographical error,
only that portion of the advertisement will be credited.
Advertising Deadlines: Monday, 2 p.m. - Brussels; Monday, 4 p.m. - Blyth.
We are not responsible for unsolicited newscripts or photographs.
Contents of The Citizen are Copyright.
Publications Mail Registration No. 6969
VERIFIED' •
CIRCULATION
How young can they go?
Freeze frame
Photo by Bonnie Gropp
Letters
AN OPEN LETTER TO HULLETT
TOWNSHIP TAXPAYERS:
Current government legislation
requires that the clerk's office and
council chambers must be
wheelchair accessible by 1996. In
order to meet these requirements,
Council proposed a number of
alternatives:
1) renovate the existing building;
2) make an agreement with the
board of education to make use of
the Hullett Public School property
facilities;
3) build a new building on land
the township currently owns at the
edge of Londesboro.
Hullett Township council held
two open information meetings
regarding this issue. Public opinion
was against the building of a new
facility.
In July 1994, council voted to
proceed with their plan to erect a
new building.
Option 1:
Council claims to renovate the
present building is not feasible.
Was this option investigated
thoroughly? It is not possible to
rearrange the present layout.
- move the council chambers
downstairs and the office of the
road superintendent upstairs.
- adopt an open concept in present
office area.
- add an elevator/washroom/
entrance to the building.
- move back office wall further
into the garage/work area. (Work
area houses the nine vehicles/
equipment the township currently
owns for use by our three public
works employees. Council is at
present considering the purchase
of another new truck at a cost of
$140,000. do we need all this
equipment?
Option 2:
This is the option favoured by
those present at the public
meetings. The school is willing to
work with council on a plan for co-
existence. A report of the meeting
is available outlining the various
options.
The school is already supported
by our tax dollars.
Option 3:
This is the option favoured by the
council. Their plan is to erect a
2400 sq. ft. building. Cost per sq.
ft. has increased from $45 to $85
since talks began. Council has
stated the cost to Hullett Township
will be $60 - $70,000 of the
infrastructure grant and 'our
reserves. Colborne Twp's building
cost $300,000.
Whose money makes up the
infrastructure grant ultimately?
Where did the reserves come from?
Was council planning this for years
and redirecting our money from
other areas such as roadwork and
recreation? Does the cost include
drilling a well, a septic system for
the three washrooms, furnishings,
landscaping and future upkeep?
Council claims the building
could be sold for a home if there is
an amalgamation of municipal
government in a couple of years
and Hullett is not chosen as the
regional centre.
Why would anyone pay $200,000
for a property with no basement,
and a living room big enough for
75 people?
The property being considered
could be sold as residential lots.
Lots in Londesboro are selling for
$20,000 each and the new
homeowners would pay taxes on
these lots. The revenue from the
lots would go a long way toward
the cost of another type of facility.
The infrastructure money is not
available until the township's share
of the funding is in place. It can be
reassigned to the other plans.
Remember it is not free money.
The final meeting on this issue is
Jan. 31 at 7:30 p.m. Don't you want
a say in how your tax dollars are
spent?
Come along to the meeting with
your questions and suggestions.
This council needs to hear from the
people who elected them. They
need your help to make an
informed, viable decision all
residents of the township can be
happy with.
John Radford.
PAGE 4. THE CITIZEN, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995.
The common sense expressed in For the Love of Learning, the
report of the Royal Commission into Ontario's education system was
refreshing for most parents, except in the one recommendation that
education start with three-year-
old children.
This must surely have brought
a shudder to rural trustees and
parents of young children who
can only get to school by bus.
In rural Ontario there was already a great deal of questioning about the
sanity of having junior kindergarten children, as young as four years
old, riding buses for long days at school. The idea of extending this to
three-year-olds is more ridiculous. What next? Including a course for
diaper changing in teacher's college?
Both this move and junior kindergarten seem to be an attempt to
introduce universal day care under a a different name. There is no
doubt, as the commissioners state, that some children would benefit,
especially those who are not getting proper care now. But aside from
the problems associated with busing young children, surely there are
much more economical ways to provide early childhood education. We
hardly need people with a bachelor of education to look after three-
year-olds. There are dozens of young graduates of early childhood
education looking for work who will earn far less than the lowest paid
teacher.
We simply can't afford the kind of system the commissioners have
proposed. This is one aspect of their report the government should not
act on. —KR
A strange romance
Politics, they say, makes strange bedfellows and the romance
between Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau and the French government
last week proves the point.
On first glance it is perhaps understandable that France should
encourage the independence of a new French speaking country but the
history of France and Quebec over the past 200 years indicates this
infatuation is something very recent. In fact until Quebec nationalists
turned to a drive for independence and former French President Charles
de Gaulle made his famous "Quebec libre!" speech in 1967, both
parties had made a point of ignoring the other.
Quebec came to be dominated by people speaking English only
because France decided it wasn't worth the effort to battle the English
for the colony after the defeat on the Plains of Abraham. On the other
hand, nationalists in Quebec had led a boycott of the war effort in
Canada in the two world wars, feeling they had no business coming to
the aid of France in its time of need (or of Britain either). Isolationism
was the word among nationalist forces back then. Indeed while some
Quebecers ignored the pressure not to fight and volunteered for the
Canadian forces, it was mainly Canadians from outside that province
who fought and died to free France from German occupation during the
two wars. The French were not pleased, however, when Canadian
ambassador Benoit Bouchard pointed this out last week just months
after the D-Day commemoration.
How much does France's new love for Quebec really mean? Will it
step in if Canada refuses' to buy every syllable of a Quebec declaration
of independence? If, for instance, we dispute the splitting of the
national debt or the integrity of Quebec boundaries? Not likely, but
hopefully we'll never have to find out. Hopefully the ordinary people of
Quebec won't be impressed by a few empty gestures. — KR
Police must obey the law
It's tough being a police officer but in reaction to criticism police
can go too far. Last week's strike by some Toronto police officers is a
case in point.
There's no doubt that a lot of police officers in the city are angry.
Their hurt stems in part from being blamed for the problems of
increased crime in the city instead of being the people in the front ranks
of trying to change the situation. Politically correct advocates for racial
minorities like to point the finger at police, one black police
commissioner even calling them "an occupying army". This general
criticism is unfair to the majority of the officers.
On the other hand the cast in question tends to prove the point of the
critics. The story of two officers pulling over a CITY-TV reporter just,
it would seem, because he was black, begs a real investigation. When
the deputy-chief wanted a real investigation, the police went on strike.
Police deserve respect but in going on strike the police have helped
undermine public respect. — KR
E ditorial