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

Popular posts from this blog

Battle for Hastings Overview

The Story of Hastings

A letter to MPP Peter North written 25 years ago by my father...