I don't know whether it's my paranoia showing through but it seems lately that there have been a large number of issues to be dealt with. Every time we put one to rest, there's another to add to the list.

Basically, there are twelve of us on the CCRA Executive, looking after the concerns of a community of over 10,000. It sometimes can be a little overwhelming but nothing that a few interested volunteers couldn't fix. If we could be fortunate enough to double the number of people on the Executive, it would make our ability to stay on top of community issues a whole lot more manageable.

Please come out to our Annual General Meeting (AGM) on October 17th, to learn more about what we do and how you might be able to get involved without it being a burdensome task.

I have been called to task on my comments in last month's issue regarding the Brumwell development. Some of the residents who would like the development to go through and who have been lobbying City Councillors, our MPP and the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in favour of it, have expressed their unhappiness with my comments.

Let me first of all say that I and the rest of the CCRA are not opposed to people making a profit from the sale of all or part of their properties nor do we oppose development. What we are opposed to, is the severing of lands or development that is not within the bounds of the Centennial By-law.

This is your By-law. It was crafted by local residents, the former City of Scarborough and the City of Toronto. It is still in effect. It has not been displaced nor superseded by the New Official Plan. It was years in development and was designed to preserve the character and fabric of our neighbourhood. It would be remiss of me or anyone else on the CCRA Executive to not use it as the yardstick by which we measure the impact of any development in this community.

Candituft proposed a development that varies significantly from the Centennial By-law and we opposed it quickly and totally. Developers are not in the practice of preserving or bettering neighbourhoods. They are in business to make a profit - the more, the better. This is OK. We know where we stand with their approach but our objective is to ensure that their developments are within the constraints of the By-law. We have to live with what they leave behind, so we have to make sure that we voice our objections before any actual development takes place. Once the physical change starts to take place, these projects acquire a momentum that is almost impossible to stop or to change.

It is important to oppose this development because 1) it does not conform to the Centennial By-law and 2) it is important to re-enforce that message to any other developers considering projects in this community.

My apologies to those residents who would like to realize some gain on the sale of their properties but please be wary of what will be left behind.

Nothing further to report on Yellow Moon.

Several issues ago, I advised you that we were concerned about proposed changes to and widening of Meadowvale. The residents on Meadowvale organized their own survey which they conducted with over 200 residents. Overwhelmingly, the residents were opposed to any change that would detract from the existing character of the street. From discussions about the widening of Port Union and alternatives, it was my understanding that Meadowvale was "no longer on the table" for consideration. Unfortunately this seems to no longer be true.

The same residents who conducted the survey have informed me that the City is planning to widen, resurface and put in curbs and sewers. This is directly opposed to what the residents want and it is not the sort of action that is undertaken when the intention is to leave Meadowvale as a street that runs from Lawrence to just short of Highway 2A. If this is what is proposed, we have a real problem to deal with. As I've stated before, altering the character of Meadowvale or expanding it north, will seriously, detrimentally affect our community.

Bob Baron President

.