Letter to the Editor, Simcoe Reformer, 25 August 2013

-
Letter to the Editor, Simcoe Reformer, 25 August 2013:

I am outraged at the treatment of property owners on Hastings Drive in Long Point who had cottages destroyed in 1985.  

There were people who were lucky enough to have their properties survive the storms, and they are in opposition to anyone who still owns land there being able to use it as they see fit.  These cottagers cite environmental issues (turtle nests, Fowler's toad), and the fact this land is still dangerous for human habitation due to unpredictable weather and land stability, yet they still have the privilege of living there.  Their protests are laughably hypocritical and discriminatory, but this is merely a smokescreen.  Their real concern is keeping everyone else out.

If Hastings Drive is so ecologically fragile and dangerous for human habitation, as these cottagers claim, the land should be expropriated by the provincial or federal governments and turned over to the CWS or other environmental agencies.  Human habitation should be banned and the land turned into a nature preserve where people cannot enter.  Let's see how eagerly the cottagers on Hastings Drive leave their homes then.   It's all for the Fowler's toad, right?

My family travelled 3 hours to enjoy our property last Saturday, swimming on our beach and enjoying the day.  We pitched a tent for shade (we have 2 young children and a dog).  Someone called the OPP on us.  Thank you Norfolk County.  We were told "no camping allowed".  We hadn't decided if we were going to stay overnight, however the decision was made for us.  How is it that a person can own land and have it for day-use only?  The atmosphere on Hastings Drive is extremely hostile and unpleasant.  We packed up and left.

Norfolk County sits on its hands and does nothing.  They do not care about the property owners who lost their cottages.  The situation boggles the mind.  I am having a difficult time finding a comparable situation elsewhere.  There are places all over this continent where worse hazards exists, and people are allowed to rebuild their homes.   This is a case of discrimination, of the "haves" and the "have-nots".  It's clear the people who were lucky enough to have their cottages survive (the "haves") view Hastings Drive as their private fiefdom and do not want the property owners who lost cottages (the "have-nots") be able to do anything on their land.   The "haves" motive for wanting to maintain the status quo is purely selfish, despite their alleged environmental concerns: they like having the place to themselves.  If Norfolk County wants to promote growth, development and tourism, they are going to have to do a heck of a lot better than this.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Battle for Hastings Overview

-
Image
In December 1985 a storm hit Long Point, located on the north shore of Lake Erie.  Some homes were damaged on Hastings Drive and one of them was ours.  We were told by the authorities to tear down what remained, that the road would be closed, no rebuilding would be allowed, and the area was re-zoned Hazard Land. My father wrote to his MP, MPP, and anyone else who would listen about this situation: no insurance pay out, and harassment for even visiting our property.  He eventually gave up ever seeing this situation put right. In August 2013 we visited our property with our two children to go for a swim.  Someone called the police on us and we were asked to leave. This has to stop.  This is our land. We are calling upon Norfolk County to re-zone this road.  It has been over 30 years.  Other parts of Long Point, with the same issues as Hastings Drive, were deemed Hazard Land after the storm but have since been re-zoned!  The Hazar...
Read more

The Story of Hastings

-
Image
Courtesy of the Shoreline Group.  To join please contact wearehastings@gmail.com H A S T I N G S Ask yourself this… If you owned a home that was destroyed by fire in Fort McMurray, or a flood of the Red River, or a flood of the High River, and were subsequently told by the municipality you could not rebuild because there ‘might’ be another event that could destroy your home, what would you do?  To add insult to injury, the municipality effectively sterilizes your property by down zoning it with no compensation: what would you do?  That your neighbour who is on the lot immediately next to you whose house remained intact can continue to enjoy the privilege of enjoying their property?  Would you feel fairly treated?  And yes, we do live in Canada. This is the story of Hastings. Hastings Drive is a 3 kilometer stretch of beach and forms part of a 42 kilometer sand peninsula well known as Long Point, Ontario. Hastings Drive was a regis...
Read more

The Evolution of Legal Non-Conforming Rights (Toronto: 2010)

-
Image
Many, if not most, municipalities across Ontario have provisions in their zoning by-laws that purport to limit repair, renovation or use of buildings that are non-conforming as to use or non-complying as to performance standards. The intent and effect of these by-laws are to “encourage” property owners to bring non-conformity or non-compliance to an end. Two recent decisions, TDL Group Corp. v. Ottawa (City), 2009 CarswellOnt 7336 (O.M.B.), striking out a portion of the  City of Ottawa’s  zoning  by-law  regarding non-conforming rights, and Ottawa (City) v. TDL Group Corp., 2009. Carswell Ont 7168 (Ont. Div. Ct.), which denied the City of Ottawa’s leave to appeal of an order of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB or Board), signifies a clear and unambiguous ruling that municipalities may not limit or coercively bring to an end non-conforming or non-complying rights beyond the narrow constraints permitted by the Planning Act, R.S.0. 1990, c. P.13 and at common law...
Read more