To the Editor,
There was a crossing guard and cross walk on Highway 12. When the highway got repaired they did not paint a new cross walk, and the crossing guard was taken away. Having a cross walk makes a safer environment for the whole community and the crossing guard ensures the students’ safety.
There should be a new cross walk put in place, and a crossing guard would also be beneficial.
Braeden, Greenbank P.S.
In the past there was a crossing guard at Highway 12 and Cragg Road. A year ago the crossing guard was removed. I believe a crossing guard should be returned to that location.
Firstly, the cars on Highway 12 go very fast and there is a local school that has chhildren crossing the road.
In addition, the elderly people are crossing the road to go to church and other stores. Crossing lines would slow down drivers.
Furthermore the other schools in the area have crossing guards therefore Greenbank and Epsom should have one too.
I think that the crossing guards should be put back.
Cole, Greenbank P.S
In the past there was a crossing guard at Highway 12 and Cragg Rd. A year ago the crossing guard was removed. I believe a crossing guard should be returned to that location.
I think we should put a crossing by Highway 12. If we don't have a crossing guard kids are in danger. When there isn’t a crossing guard there is a higher chance of kids getting hit.
S.A. Cawker just got their crossing guard, why can’t we get it? When our road is busier than their road.
There is a curve in the road, kids can’t see the cars coming around the corner and the can’t see the kids.
I think we should have a crossing guard, before and after school. What about you?
Keaton, Greenbank P.S.
In the past there was a crossing guard at Hwy. 12 and Cragg Road. A year ago the crossing guard was removed and I believe a crossing guard should be returned to that location!
Firstly, we want to make sure that kids can cross the road safely to and from school.
In addition, there are a lot of big trucks that go fast and it is hard to stop quickly if there is a child on the road. Furthermore, crossing guards are role models for kids, and the kids will learn to cross the road safely.
In conclusion, it would be a benefit in our community to have a crossing guard.
As reported in last week’s Standard, Scugog Township is finally moving ahead with plans to carry out random bore-hole soil testing at the Greenbank Airways site.
It appears that the pleas from nearby residents that have gone on for far too long are finally being answered, and we applaud the current councillors for finally stepping in to determine if contaminants have made their way onto the site.
While the task of testing all of the soil shipped onto the rural airfield is impossible, these 10 to 20 planned tests should go a long way to determine what has actually been taking place since trucks began rolling in more than two years ago as part of an ambitious plan by operators at the site to truck in more than 2.5 million cubic metres of soil to the site - more than enough to twice fill Toronto’s Rogers Centre. With the original agreement between the township and operators due to expire at the end of the month, a new agreement will be unveiled at a special council meeting, scheduled for 7 p.m., on Monday, March 30 at the Scugog Municipal Office.
If this recent news is any indication, the township appears to finally be taking additional steps to work towards an agreement with more safeguards in place for those living in the area of the site, which sits close to the headwaters of the Nonquon River.
The matter will further addressed in the coming weeks by MP Erin O’Toole, who will be holding a special meeting at Greenbank Hall, on Wednesday, April 8, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. to address the concerns of area residents.
With these recent developments, for the first time in a long time, Greenbank residents may have a reason for optimism.
To the Editor,
Neighbourhoods - I would venture to suggest that they are the backbone of our Canadian culture. The City of Toronto has made an effort to preserve them with their neighbourhood street signs, and the various outdoor rinks, and the parks dotted over the cityscape. Meanwhile here in Uxbridge and in Scugog, the prevailing attitude in the minds of those in authority (supported by The Standard's editorial) seems to be, "Let them come to Town and use the facilities provided in our urban centre. That's where their tax money is going." I cite two items reported in last week's edition (Feb. 26) of your newspaper.
At a public meeting in Seagrave it was revealed that the Coryell St. park and structures had been built and maintained over the years by volunteers using their own materials, time and money. But after amalgamation, Scugog Township took over the maintenance (which apparently doesn't measure up to the previous care) and now the community is plagued with prohibitive fees and permits in order to use their own facility.
At Uxbridge Township Council's last budget meeting Mayor O'Connor lamented the fact that next year's budget would be even tougher to manage and the municipality might have to sell off excess parkland, and properties such as the halls in Siloam and Goodwood, to keep costs down. Our historic hall in Goodwood presently rests in the capable hands of the local Lions Club which pays for hydro, heat and incidental repairs at no cost to the taxpayers, yet every year Council makes noises about selling the building to cut costs It must be discouraging and frustrating for the Lions when they discuss spending their own funds on building improvements, when the threat of having the structure snatched out from under them, looms overhead every year at municipal budget time.
Seagrave residents disbanded their park board in disgust. Who could blame the Goodwood Lions if they threw in the towel as well? In Uxbridge, as I am sure in Scugog also, we bemoan the fact that the pool of community volunteers seems to be shrinking more and more every year. Local governments should be doing what they can to support and encourage neighbourhood endeavours instead of throwing obstacles in their paths every step of the way.
Almost every week it seems, somewhere in this newspaper, there is a story concerning development.
Residents were opposed to a development in Uxbridge last week, and this week, Regional Chair Roger Anderson was reminding members of council to make sure they North Durham presented a strong case to Queen’s Park on the matter of reformed Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine legislation, in part to possibly open the door to additional development. That in turn, would be opposed by nearby residents, and the cycle will continue.
That seems to be the nature of how these stories play out. Wherever there is development, residents opposed to that development are rarely far behind armed with the usual arguments about traffic and potential negative impact on property values.
The reality of the situation is that there has never been any sort of development that has pleased existing residents who have become accustomed to their quiet neighbourhood and plentiful greenspace.
That’s not to say that all development is good development, and in cases where a development can only move ahead after the oldest home in town is moved as in the case of 62 Mill St. in Uxbridge, it probably should be modified in some way.
Navigating this delicate balance of adding new while protecting old is a large part of why councillors are elected in the first place. An ideal mix of ideas from the municipality, local residents and developers is a must if our communities are going to grow in a responsible manner, and we should all be working together to ensure a vibrant and healthy community for generations to come.