The Rural Voice, 1979-08, Page 29Bruce Trail
controversy heats up
BY LISE GUNBY
The drama of opposing factions that characterizes the Bruce
Trail controversy reached another peak last month when the
Bruce Peninsula Protection Organization staged a motorcade
protest.
The group, numbering more than 100, travelled from Wiarton
to Tobermory, placed the Niagara Escarpment Commission
report in a coffin, and buried it at sea.
That protest June 10 followed a previous protest on May 23,
which took the same route, this time by tractors.
While this preliminary report was buried by factions opposed
to its proposals, all of the groups concerned - farmers,
politicians, property owners, developers, ratepayers, hikers and
the Bruce Trail Association - are waiting for the new NEC report
expected this summer or fall.
The Bruce Trail officially opened as a centennial project in
1967. Land owners with property affected by the path were
consulted by Bruce Trail Association members, and a handshake
agreement resulted.
The Association said they would keep the trail clean and
prevent it from becoming a nuisance. The property owners
consented to the use of their property by passing hikers.
That verbal agreement 12 years ago has developed into a
tangled issue.
When the trail was opened, most land owners "accepted the
hikers with open arms," said James Vidol, chairman of the
Property Owner's Rights Association, "but when I see what is
being done to the property owner for the benefit of hikers who
have no vested interest in the land..."
There have been complaints about littering, broken bottles
damaging tractor tires, fires, fruit stolen from orchards and noisy
four-wheel drives and trailbikes.
"It was a good thing and most of the people around here were
very supportive," said Norman Seabrook of Holland township,
"but it was spoiled by a few."
"There are some legitimate concerns when the land owners
get fed up with the litter." said Ray Lowes, Bruce Trail
Association secretary, but "every foot of the trail" is cleaned up
by club members assigned to each area.
The Niagara Escarpment Commission was set up in 1973, to
devise a policy of land use for the escarpment which contains the
430 mile footpath which crosses private property for two thirds of
its length. The commission was given power under Bill 129 to
control the development of that land.
"The ratepayer's objective has been to have that legislation
revised," said Mr. Seabrook, reporter for the Northern
Ratepayer's Association. He said he feels that the power over
development should be given to the local municipalities.
Don Taylor was the head planner for the NEC, said Mr.
Seabrook, but he resigned, tewng the press that : 1) giving the
NEC jurisdiction and superceding the local authorities was the
first plan of its kind in North America, and 2) similar plans
would be used throughout the province in the future.
"This is what we have suspected and fear," Mr. Seabrook
said, "I don't like this state-controlled thing."
"The environmentalists are now opposed to the methods
being used," he said, "so it's just the government left on the
other side of the fence."
Property owners have the right to prevent access to the parts
of the trail that cross their property. But the NEC governs the
development of that property.
The owner is "saddled with valueless land," said James Vidol
of Beamsville, which he could sell, but because of the controls
preventing building,it is worthless to do so.
Bob McKessock, Liberal MPP for Grey, introduced a private
member's bill in May of 1978 which, though it was defeated on
the second reading, would have made it compulsory for the
government to issue a development control permit to the
landowner, unless a permit would not conform with the local
official plan and zoning by-laws.
If the government would not issue the permit, then it would be
required to purchase the property.
"It's just the government
on the other side of the fence"
Also proposed in the defeated bill was that the area controlled
by the NEC be cut down to the development control area. It was
proposed that the area be cut by 80 per cent. Since that time, it
has been cut down by about 60 per cent without provincial
legislation, said Mr. McKessock.
The third section of the bill proposed that appeals against
controls be made to the Ontario Municipal Board rather than to
the Ministry of Housing.
NEW PROPOSALS
Mr. McKessock said he is waiting for the new proposals from
the NEC report expected in September.
"There is still a great pressure in the Niagara Escarpment area
to do away with the commission, which would save S1.8 million
in this year," he said.
"I feel this is the route that should be taken," said Mr.
McKessock.
Those with land affected by the trail should be able to sell it to
the government if the government wanted to buy, he said.
Otherwise, local official plans should determine policy.
"The NEC, to be fair, has certainly put a greater emphasis on
the prqtection of the escarpment," he said, but so have the local
governments, which are "certainly capable of protecting the
escarpment and serving the local people."
Mr. Lowes of the trail association disagrees. "1 believe that
there should be a plan for the Niagara Escarpment area," he
THE RURAL VOICE/AUGUST 1979 PG 27
1