The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Trevor Miller It's disappointing that the city and cottage association were not able to come to a compromise on fire protection, but expecting cottagers to pay more just for fire protection than many city homeowners pay for their entire municipal tax bill was always a non-starter. Especially considering the response time involved means firefighters would effectively be coming out to keep the neighbours' cabins from going up off the ashes of their own homes, the city was offering higher cost for much lower protection, which doesn't seem like a very good deal for cottagers. I'm not surprised they didn't jump to sign. Ken Mansell This is getting nowhere. It's time to ask the government to intervene. This is their jurisdiction. I hope there are no serious fires to deal with; if there are, I hope we can all help out. It must be realized that the cottage owners association has no authority to enter into agreements on behalf of cottage country. The city is talking to the wrong people.Denny Hyndman My thoughts are that a lot of this banter has stirred up contention between cottage and city. This is a provincial duty, the cottage association is NOT a legal entity and cannot exact any agreement without provincial say-so. It is my understanding that cottagers have been trying to seek an agreement with the municipality for four years already, the media coverage over the last half-year is a little extreme. The real shame to this story is how all provincial funding gushes are nothing but a trickle once up North. All other northern cottage associations have a deals in place with their municipalities _ why is the province delaying our cottagers and our municipality?
