Property Standards by-law 'infringes on livelihood'
Dear editor,

Innisfil's proposed Property standards Bylaw CW-116-07 prejudicially targets people who like to boat, fish and camp in a resort, lakefront town where the main draw for tourists is the water.

This bylaw infringes on the right to carry on a livelihood. It prejudicially singles out people who drive bigger pickup trucks despite the fact that we are a mixed land use town. This bylaw restricts the type of small business residents can be involved in. It infringes on the right to freedom of choice, in what vehicle we drive.

Small pickup trucks aren't adequate for every business. Are we encouraging or discouraging small family owned business in this town? A small pickup truck does not suit all purposes.

Even if a person who requires larger pickup trucks for their livelihood owns a big enough property to comply, that livelihood had better not be a family business. I have two sons in different sectors of the construction business. That makes three right now. If this bylaw is passed, one of them will have to find somewhere else to park his vehicle every night. He'll have to find rides every day. That's a lot of wasted time, gas and added pollution in the air every night, night after night, morning after morning driving him to and from an approved place to park. And that's IF we can find an approved place to park.

This bylaw is prejudicial regarding financial status. Only those with a level of income great enough to afford a bigger property will be able to keep their vehicle of choice; Only people who can afford to install and maintain a so-called 'proper' driveway running 50 metres from any property line. CW- 116.07 limits the number of vehicles parked anywhere anyway, so that even if the vehicle owner finds a big enough property and driveway to store it on, the owner of that property has a quantity limitation of two anyway, so there will be cases where people will not be able to park their pickup, their boat or their recreational vehicle anywhere in the town at least within their financial means.

This bylaw infringes on the right to security. Citizens will lose the right to oversee their own property. Can you guarantee the security of a vehicle or boat or recreational vehicle parked away from the owners watchful eye? In any case, if this vehicle restriction is based on aesthetics, I've seen some beautiful 3/4 ton pickups, and I've seen some terrible looking dented and rusty but roadworthy cars. Will you in all fairness create a bylaw that no-one can have a vehicle on their residential property with rust on it or dents in it? Again, that would be targeting lower income residents. Will you restrict vehicles that have colours you don't like? If people don't like looking out their window at a recreational vehicle, maybe they don't like purple cars, either. Will you legislate against purple cars in all fairness? Maybe you don't like the look of your neighbour's house. Maybe you can legislate it to be torn down.

The refreshing rural recreational community we live in is being legislated into a bedroom community. We've lost the right to have marshmallow roasts in our backyards. We can't give our pets a drink from the lake on a scorching summer day. Now we can't even keep our own boat. This is a bylaw made for someone, but it's not necessarily the kind of person who makes a good neighbour.

The town of Innisfil is losing the designation of a fun, recreational home. I'm not sure what it's becoming, but it's quickly losing the designation of a fun place to live and do business.

Signed,

Peter Deschamps 39 year resident of the Innisfil Titanic