Recently, President George Bush used his presidential powers to pardon his friend and political ally Scooter Libby. The pardon prompted presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton to express, that Bush is “elevating cronyism over the rule of law.”
Here in Pontiac, sometimes the laws designed to protect our environment are being flagrantly violated by individuals, who in turn are not being penalized by municipal councils. Why is this?
I am not at all surprised my last week’s column, “Cottage Life: Go Natural! Go Native!” prompted readers to contact me. In it, I urged everyone to leave their cottage shoreline aka waterfront as natural as possible. Why plant and mow grass? Why rake mussels? Why rip out natural vegetation which creates biodiversity and natural erosion control?
Why did some readers contact me? Because they wanted to express deep concern over what some of their neighbours are doing to neighbouring Pontiac waterfront properties.
I heard stories of verbal abuse and intimidation. Some hitherto friendly people are deliberately antagonizing their neighbours by ripping up, mowing or even cutting down natural vegetation – including trees – along shorelines. Still others expressed annoyance to me because it is now illegal to haul sand to create and maintain your beach.
Waterfront properties are in high demand for cottagers and home builders throughout North America – including Pontiac. Not only do private individuals seek waterfront, large-scale developers do, too.
I’ve written many columns on the issue of shoreline protection over the years. Many have been prompted by trips through Ontario’s Muskoka and Lake Huron cottage country. These regions provide examples of what can happen when large-scale developers buy out individual private property owners. The result can be sprawling condominiums, time-shares, walled communities and beaches which dominate the landscape. What natural shorelines are left? None.
We need to ask ourselves, “what price, development?” Does the increase in tax revenue justify the means? Councillors? Mayors? What is your long-term visioning for our region?
If you are currently selling or purchasing waterfront property, are you aware of restrictions related to flood plains? I’m soon to get a copy of the March 2006 Quebec law related to the determination and protection of flood plains of the Ottawa River from the MRC Pontiac. It is my current understanding that if waterfront is flooded within a 20-100-year time frame, it is illegal to build upon or even add fill to the lots. Buyers and sellers should inform themselves on this point. The corollary to this situation, of course, is that if you own property adjacent to a flood plain, your property values may soar.
What to do? Know your rights and your legal requirements as seller – and buyer. “Caveat emptor.”
Thanks to the Municipality of Bristol’s website, we can all read the Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Parks as well as Ministry of Environment’s latest announcement regarding waterfront protection here in Quebec. (www.bristolmunicipality.com/bylaws_lakes_rivers.html)
I quote, “The Quebec Ministry of Environment and the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Parks (Outaouais region) wish to remind you that lakes and rivers as well as the shore strips along them are living and protected habitats. It is therefore important to check out if permits are needed before doing any type of work, even on private properties.”
They list activities that are forbidden by law. Read them. They include “Cutting vegetation (trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants) inside the 10-meter (sometimes 15-meter) wide shore strip alongside any lake, river or stream (except for a 5-meter wide pedestrian access to the water and the removal of dead or sick trees). The usual practice of putting lawn on the shore down to the water is strictly forbidden.”
Some exceptions exist. But note that you must procure permission by way of a permit first. Go to the website, inform yourself, and act within the bounds of the law. Why incur a fine and have to restore shoreline – not to mention the wrath of your neighbours who are obeying the law for worthwhile reasons?
Yes, by-laws can be a pain. Most of us are used to acting independently, and we property owners can get annoyed at being told we cannot do what we want to do to our land.
However, laws and by-laws are designed with the common good in mind– not to mention environmental good – which individual property owners or tenants may not be considering.
By-laws also serve – when judiciously applied – another crucial purpose. They enable neighbours to get along. For example, if someone objects to their neighbour illegally stripping a shoreline’s natural vegetation, like it or not, here in Quebec they are well within their rights to object to the municipality, with reasonable expectations that council will enforce an existing law.
If the complaint has merit, municipal mayors, councillors, and municipal workers ought to support the complainant, who need not be named. Therefore the law can be objectively applied while protecting good neighbourliness. This is what elected officials are elected and paid to do: serve the public.
I think most politicians work hard and take public service and leadership seriously.
However, using this shoreline example, if property owners are in violation of the law, local authorities including building inspectors are at fault if they do not act to prevent destruction of natural habitats. Talk to – and if all else fails – apply the law to violators, regardless if they are summer tenants or permanent residents who’ve lived here for generations.
Problem is, intimidation works all too easily particularly when money is involved. Mayors and councillors hold jobs in the community and can be pressured all too easily. Few of us embrace confrontation – and my point here is that’s why the laws serve us all because they can be seen to be impartial. All of us are bound by them.
Mayors, councillors, municipal workers: you are in public service. Your job is to uphold the law and act as leaders. If you don’t act responsibly and apply the law, you are encouraging us to think just like Senator Clinton, that is, that you are “elevating cronyism over the rule of law.”
Contact Katharine at Chesley@allstream.net