A diaper on the beach or just an urban myth?

This comment came in overnight and demonstrates both the anger of the writer and the blindness to other points of view.
"I live opposite the beach and park and I'm sick, tired and fed up with the disgusting behavior of the weekend visitors to our park and beach. I've watched them urinating on resident's grass, digging holes in the sand to use as a toilet, etc. Mr Burd wake up you idiot and take a look at what is really happening to our once beautiful park and beach. You sure have your head buried in the sand." signed Anonymous.
No wonder the writer wouldn't put a name to a note such as this, btw calling me out as an idiot won't work, I'm inured to the remark, and if I am burying my head in the sand it won't be the sand in front of the correspondents' house - it's full of diapers and feces (or so I am told)! But, if anonymous has time to sit on a property and watch such disgusting behaviour why didn't he/she grab a camera and capture the evidence on tape. After all if it happens as often as described it would be a no-brainer. This tale of the buried diaper has to be tracked down - truth or Urban Myth? Perhaps a phone call to the Parks Department on a Monday would determine the number of diapers that jammed up the beach sweeper. Were there any diapers discovered during the Sand-Castle competition? If there were nobody is talking, perhaps on the orders of the Tourism Department cockahoop with success from its viral marketing campaign bringing thousands of tourists to Town.
But back to the point, last night a delegation appeared before Council to read out the list of documented complaints and suggested that an Ad-Hoc committee be formed of Residents and Staff, and others. Well here's a suggestion for Council; put a couple of Visitors on the committee! Otherwise the committee would like a bunch of angry neighbours (just as it looks now). Now., the idiot that I am (yes I did take that insult seriously folks) happens to think that an average of up to a couple of thousand weekend visitors coming to play in Cobourg is a good thing, I also think that the facilities and the Town workers have done a good job but have been overwhelmed on a couple of occasions (The RibFest weekend for sure) and a few bad people have not been as civilised as the rest of us. After all we don't all make a habit of peeing in the bushes on Bay St. but some do - that has to be stopped and if we need more washrooms at the East End we should build them. If the garbage facilities are overflowing we should thank the visitors for bagging the garbage and put in bigger bins. How many campers at Presquile or other tourist spots take their garbage home? They don't they deposit them at the drops provided. We have to be more frequent in our pickups.

Editorial comment
And let this winter be a period of learning, I for one don't want to see any more letters written by disguised racists letting fly with idiotic opinions written in code. Cobourg is not just a haven for Memsahibs and Masters living out their retirements in a white colony, we have to share what we have with a diverse bunch of other folk. And if the lovely people who meet regularly in the Dutch Oven every morning to right the world with their views from the Right don't like this opinion then I make no appologies.

Monday Council notes on a Sunday

Cobourg Council gets back to it on Monday and nothing startling in the agenda. The only potentially contentious item is a letter from a Bay St resident who sent a letter asking that "improvements" be made to the Victoria Park "situation". There is no letter as such attached to the agenda just a table that outlines "suggestions" that would improve the area. The question is now; improvements for whom?
The list is published on the right. If taken as submitted the overall effect of banning cars from Paul Currely Way would be to impose gridlock on other streets. It should be noted that on busy weekends all the streets in Corktown and lower Cobourg, on the East side are used. So making the Bay Streeters happy would inflict pain on other householders in the area. And is it fair that the Bay Streeters would enjoy their BBQs whilst denying the same pleasure to visitors?
It would appear to the BR that this letter would only divide the community and not welcome visitors to the world they (residents) enjoy. As this letter is being referred to Staff for a report all suggestions for the improvement of the area should be included, the status quo is an option, but the suggestion about more toilet facilities is a good one. So let's have a public meeting about this and really hash it out.


click on the pic to enlarge

If you want a touchy-feely moment that really pleases (most of us; we know who don't like it!) watch the beach video again here

Hard truths for candidates

Here is a story written by the King of verbosity, throw in some pomposity and leaven with arrogance and chill with a home-spun tale of humility and we have, tadah - Rex Murphy. However in this opinion he is dead on, it foretells the trials of a candidate. If Kim Rudd thought that having to brown-nose her way into the hearts of the the local Liberal Party was deadly and tedious, wait till she tries to do it with a very cynical and unloving populace.

A new lib candidate emerges

These people, on the left, put a smile on this woman's face, on the right. Kim Rudd, a Cobourg entrepreneur won the Liberal nomination on a second round of counting. 9 votes short of the 461 needed to win, the redistribution of Andrew McFadyen's ballots gained 67 more, enough to stop an impressive second choice Chris Herrington from taking it but not impressive enough to claim a runaway win.
922, announced from the stage, people voted at the Grafton Arena last night, although the size of the meeting, at its height, was estimated to be just over five hundred. The Arena support worker told me he put out 350 chairs and, "based on other events, I would say there were just over 500 here tonight." The other 350 came in as a result of a late visit or a reminder from the many workers who were desperately working the phones "pulling the vote".
Each of the camps set up their booths: Kim Rudd's tables were giving away buttons and water, labelled 'win with kim', McFadyen's camp had sandwiches and finger food, but Herrington's table was kitted out with a chocolate machine for marshmallow dunking. The surprise to me was a publicity device in the form of a tie. Neat trick. Stephen Spencer, of Brighton, was snapped wearing one. He also led me to believe that a Rudd victory was in the offing. Asked where he was from he told me Brighton. "How many are from Brighton in this room?" I asked. "Looking around he said' "About fifty" Ooops not many for a victory for Herrington I thought. Bur once again Herrington wowed the crowd with a speech that drew the only spontaneous applause. Talking about the need to defeat Rick Norlock she again spoke a variant of the familiar lline that worked for her at the ACM. "I know Rick Norlock's weaknesses and I'm still looking for his strengths!" - you had to be there, it was a zinger.
All in all a dragged out affair designed to allow the candidates to get out the vote. The evening started at 6pm, speeches done by 7.15pm and voting closed at 1005pm; result announced by 1115pm, home by 1135.
Not a bad night for a political junkie but I did get to see these two girls having a lot of fun as well as most of the pundits, hacks and retreads in the area, guess who had the most fun?

We now have two official candidates

10 Sept 1135pm
Kim Rudd wins but it took two ballots to show that she fell far short of her target of 700. 50% + 1 of 922 is 461. The shortfall was 9 or 15 (depends on who is telling the story) votes on the first round and not knowing the numbers yet we can only guess at the second round surge of Herrington and speculate why it did not succeed. When asked by the media why numbers were not being announced, one senior scrutineer in the Rudd camp told me "We don't release the numbers as it would be unfair to the losers, we have a winning candidate and thet's what matters."
I am sure that the numbers will dribble out to selected outlets as they were no secret I even saw a vote tally, on the back of an envelope being dissected by a former mayor Cobourg, and others, as I left the room. SO maybe by the morning this will be known

10 Sept 1045pm
OK here is the first break in secrecy the final count for Rudd was 519 - 56.29% - hardly a landslide!

More in tomorrow's edition

Thursday #3

Arts funding is always contentious, mostly because afficionados are seen as non-productive artsy-fartsy lefties who don't work on real jobs and use taxpayers money, supplied by "ordinary canadians" on making junk. Can anyone identify a piece of public art that can be interpreted by everybody, even the fat man on King St has a peculiar attachment in it's title. But how can average Joe relate to the piece described as a "dog turd" designed to commemorate victims of abuse. All in all money devoted to an art fund is a hard sell but who will begrudge a 1% levy on all projects? Obviously the Council of this day. Led by "do I or don't I wanna be Mayor" Brocanier they have been successful in capping contributions to the fund at 1% or $50,000 whichever is smaller. With the comment "I don't think the taxpayer who fundraised for the Community Centre would be happy knowing that $247,000 of it went to public art" Well Gil get your math right Joe Public will only be contributing, in his fundraising, $26,000 the rest will be coming from the other contributors. And as a commenter asked "Is the money from a project only going to that project or does it go into the fund?"Anyway one doesn't get much bang for the buck when buying public art. The stone with a plaque on it that sits in the Duke of York Square (anybody knowing where this is move to the front of the class) cost in 1989 dollars over 50K. The seven stones in front of the County Building cost over $26K and more examples of pricey items can be cited. I don't know what the answer is but to establish a lofty ideal and then underfund it is shortsighted.

Thursday #2

You want to know what the leader of the Con party really thinks - get him to talk behind closed doors and no media are present. This tape surfaced, of such an event in the Soo, and was sent to the Libs and the CBC. Interesting but predictable. Take a look.

Thursday #1

Today's the day that the little libs (riding ones as opposed to ruling ones) come out to play in their sandbox. It's Nooooominaaaaation day! So you ask, who is going to win, well don't ask me, I supported Hilary, Jack and a host of losing municipal candidates, heck I couldn't even elect myself most days. But first indications are that Kim Rudd is supposed to have signed roughly half of the lapsed and new members and gained a few of the old regulars. It will be close but could be a first ballot win, but only if it is a low turnout and she gets her supporters to the Arena. But, here is the big But, because it is a preferential ballot and only one ballot, it will come down to the second choice on all ballots. Who is the second choice of all? The phones have been ringing and various people of different stripes have been seen talking together and pundits are lining up opinions about where the second choice will go. So turn up at the Grafton Arena tonight and watch all the fun.

Don't let this be buried in the comments section

If anybody in Cobourg had any doubts about the impact that Cobourg Beach has on peoples' lives watch this video here, the link was sent in a comment to a previous post:

Note to Councillor Spooner - these folks obviously enjoyed their time downtown, I bet they spent a bit of money too!!

No Baywatch Babes here, just a silly policy

It seems that all the lifeguards at the beach can do is watch for events in non-dangerous settings. Just when you think you might need a lifeguard at Cobourg's beach - when the conditions get uneasy - that's when the babes take a walk. No Hasselhoff rescues, no Pamela Anderson runs; just an evacuation of the watch towers. Kinda makes you wonder why they are there at all. In this story by Pete Fisher, it was reported that the lifeguards walked after determining the beach was unsafe due to wave conditions. Seems silly to do that but the guards were backed by a supervisor who is quoted, "We have to watch our situation from a legal point of view because we can't have lifeguards putting themselves at risk."
This is a stupid policy and unfair to the public. We expect lifeguards to be just that - lifeguards and they should supervise the beach at all times. After all when the Y whined that they couldn't patrol the beach because they didn't have enough money the Town gave them some more. I guess we should have had them sign a performance contract at that time to safeguard our interests.