Are we Estonian-speakers not Canadians? "English-Canadian" would have been a far better word to use in this article.

As an estonian, if Mr. Tanner proposal is adopted, I would consider buying property in Joekaaru.

There is little that's appealing about ESHA's proposal - it appears to be nothing more than a quick escape route from the association's financial woes, but with some important and long-term implications, namely: (1) the sale of private landholdings would lead to increased development and therefore further environmental degradation in the area; and (2) turning over the jointly-owned lands to the camp would negate homeowners' stewardship rights to the lands that many have come to appreciate and care about. I simply don't see how this could be construed in any way as being "in the best interest of all Jõekääru property owners".

In my opinion the environmentally based proposal seems sound, workable and well worth exploring further. It would potentially alleviate the financial hardship for both ESHA and the Estonian Children's camp, while allowing the continued use of the lands for recreation and enjoyment by all. Such agreements between landowners, conservation authorities and/or municipal stakeholders are very common and can take many forms. They are often implemented to ease the tax burden on the landowner while restricting undesirable development and/or land use.

With respect to operating expenses additional relief could be obtained by increasing the current user-fee levels, which have for some time been unrealistically low. While unlikely to be embraced by all, I believe many homeowners would support such as measure if it meant avoiding the negative consequences of ESHA's ill-conceived plan.

Finally, I should point out that I am an environmental engineer and my consulting company (Trow Associates) has worked extensively with local municipalities and conservation authorities, including LSRCA. If required, I would gladly offer my scientific and engineering expertise to assist in this matter. I am anxious to preserve the aspect of our community that I have come to treasure over the past 8 years as a full-time resident. I urge you to consider this carefully.

Thank you,

Tom Hlavacek

The ceding of the parklands to the camp etc. will require a second vote to be held, in keeping with the ESHA constitution.

In other words, the fat lady has not sung yet.

Nonetheless, of 54 members, 31 attended the special meeting held to discuss this, of whom 27/28 voted in favour.

There will be an "open information session" for a (nonexistent as yet) Joekaaru Community Association March 7th at Udora Hall 4PM.

Organized by a "JCA focus group".

Rather than just go there and watch the pretty powerpoint presentation, this is probably the only time to discuss why the ESHA management has not entertained the possibility of alternate proposals such as this one, even though the idea has been raised at EHSA meetings over many years.

I don't think that the proposal is a bad one - but it fails to recognize one of the most important stockholders: the Estonian community at large. The community has poured its money, blood, sweat and tears into the camp and surrounding lands for some 50 years. Where does this contribution fit in?
The camp and surrounding lands are a community asset. One that no one wants to see ruined by grotesque cookie-cutter developments. However, the reality today, is that the camp will not likely last more than 20-30 years at best. By locking the lands, we tie the community's hands and those of future generations of Estonian-Canadians.
Keeping the lands open for development and future sale does not mean a certain negative outcome for Udora latecomers. In fact, it may be the right path that keeps the immediate green areas green and undeveloped.
In the end, we can trust that ESHA's leadership has the camp's and community's best interests in mind

Toronto Star article on trees in Ontario.
“Private landowners … are being recruited for a government program with tax incentives to replenish southern Ontario’s tree population.
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Bu...
Someone wrote of “for sale signs” popping up as fast as death notices. Other than the communal lands, what value is there to the properties in Joekaaru?
NOTHING! You get your acre of land and a house. If you don’t have the communal land – you can go for a walk down the streets. In Toronto – we walk in PARKS.
You expect Estonians at their cottages to walk on streets… as “no trespassing in parklands” signs will be posted – correct?
If you own a small track of land that has water access… you will spend your time on the water. IF you own a piece of land with beautiful fields, forests and rivers surrounding it … you will want the joy of using it. And if you LIVE in Joekaaru… you will have a more expensive house on your property and if you want to get you money back – there better be more than just a house and a fence – there better be something the community offers you. This includes a strong voice to represent the community with politicians and government agencies. Otherwise, why live there?
We used to have tennis court and a strong body of people that dealt with the Ontario government to enforce the river to be cleaned-up – even people who convinced Georgian to pave Ravenshoe. These people represented everyone in the community.
Who is looking after the community now? Because Estonians are not purchasing properties you have decided to give all our communal lands away and have less… Somehow giving away land will protect it! How can you protect it when you no longer own it? Because you trust the agency you are signing it off to? In a few years when their governing body changes and they need money – who can really be sure that they will have the same vision that they PROMISE today. Only something that Erik proposes REALLY can ensure the PROTECTION of the land forever!
Spend your energy making Joekaaru a place to BE… make the communal land better… pathways, waterways, regeneration areas.
Erik’s proposition did NOT give up ownership rights… it did not imply communal lands become public property. It would protect the land from development, maintaining it’s natural environment.. Is that not exactly what everyone wanted?
We can create a “hand-on” learning experience for our children in camp. Let them become leaders in environmental protection. Create “tadpole” habitats. Build protection for turtle nests. Learn how to protect our trees and wildflowers. Plant milkweeds to bring back monarch butterflies. Teach them how to reduce mosquitos. Build bat boxes. Reduce the use of toxins – teach and research alternatives… make the world healthier. Make our community healthier and more vibrant. PROTECT what we have … and I challenge you all to make it better. Believe in your ability to attract Estonians back to our community – the JK Jazz festival is one major event that speaks volumes on the ability to get Estonians to come to Joekaaru when you give them something they enjoy and want to take part in. On the next JK Jazz event – have a brochure that “sells” the BENEFITS of owning a place in Joekaaru. This will force you to start thinking about how the decline in Joekaaru might be from lack of a vision to fully promote it.
KEEP the communal lands and protect them – get the grants and tax benefits…. Work the system and become true LEADERS of our community.

As an environmentally protected area, the camp would become valuable in dollar terms and it would benefit resident property values too. The camp would become a place that other environmental groups would want to rent out. Too bad estonians feel they need to protect their culture at the expense of everyone else that is not estonian.

Both of you miss the point… keeping and protecting the communal property means the current board members will be leaders in protecting what Estonians have built up over the years AND ensuring property values are protected… and ensuring no development on the communal lands (which everyone fears if the English speaking owners have a say) and that taxes would go down. This is a win win situation… if you sign over the lands to the children’s camp … there is NO protection… words and promises from the children’s camp directors mean nothing in a few years. What happens if the camp needs money (like it perpetually does) … do you really believe they will allow it to fold? No, they will sell land!!!! And like it or not you will no longer have a say. You believe they won’t do it… but you have ZERO protection… all communal lands will be lost forever unless you buy it back. How crazy is that?
If the children’s camp ever lost enrollment and had to sell… IT would be more marketable as a “hands-on” environmental experiential camp… outsiders would flock to it… but really we all would prefer if it remains predominately Estonian… either way… the camp will always have use of the ESHA communal lands … and if the ESHA keeps the lands and protects it … it can encourage the camp to have a wider focus than just sports and dancing… something exciting for the kids… getting into nature… working toward saving our micro environment. You are not realizing the opportunities that will be lost.
ESHA should be leaders and find out WHY we are not attracting Estonians as purchasers… and change things to entice them back. Use the lower taxes, protect the communal lands as Erik suggested… and continue the sweat equity that our Estonian predecessors have worked hard for… they would be shocked that what they worked so hard to create is so casually given away… and since my parents were part of the hard work that created Joekaaru and ESHA … I for one KNOW that they would be disappointed by the current board that does not believe in the value of keeping what they worked so hard to achieve and that they find it is so easily cast away especially if there is a way to protect it FOREVER!
Face it… right now (if I understood the ESHA board meeting notes) Land owned by the ESHA is slated to be sold to finance this “gift of acreage” to the camp… with the words that they will get the best price and oh yes, we have already sold a parcel of land before we voted on it to an interested party. How do you get the “best price” if the land is purchased privately before it is offered to the public… already it appears to me that deception is a foot. And you think your board is doing what is good for the property owners.
Grow up folks – fear of the evil English speaking owners is motivating all that is happening. Not protection of the vision our parents had when they built this community. And I for one believe that Estonians will return if there is a reason to return – like a vibrant Estonian community that has a vision for the future – and a governing body that believes in Joekaaru.

I have lived here for more than ten years and am not estonian. I have helped out on many community work days, as has my husband. I have come to know many people here and among non-estonians I have never met anyone that has an interest in taking anything away from the Estonian community. I'd say our (canadian) support for the camp and the estonian community is overwhelming. I know I have no say in any decisions here, but for what it is worth, I believe the non-estonian community is very much interested in helping the camp prosper and is only interested in improving what we all have. We are a community of Estonians and non-Estonians, and, well, I wish there was some way we could all work together, hand in hand, so that the community thrives, rather than see it make plans for it's end times at the cost of your neigbours. Is there no creative way that we can work together and yet not imperil what Estonians have worked so hard to achieve. Cannot Joekaaru be made into a monument of Estonian ingenuity that we can all benefit from. I think the fears of the Estonian community are unfounded. We love you....some of us wish we were estonian. Please do not foresake us.

I think the idea and proposal of the nature conservation is nice, fluffy and feel-good, but not a smart move on behalf of the estonian community. estonians are by nature, naturalists, and it's just going to create more expense and more headaches to pay money and have a "stamp of approval" from a conservation board.

keep it simple with the solution originally proposed and don't get more parties involved. the simpler the better.

typical.....open a can of worms by chosing to propose a solution, inappropriately on Eesti Elu, rather than to a board/community that it pertains to.....and this is what you get....mass confusion, jumping to conclusions, people who are not involved, and thus now possible war between 2 communities (meaning canadian & canadian-estonians) which under normal circumstances probably could have been avoided or lessened.

i still shake my head at the likes of these writers.

A small point with a rambling aftermath aimed at our community: It seems as if the writer of this possibly worthy proposal has made a common slip by using the phrase "Canadian property owners" to refer to those who are of non-Estonian descent. It would be easy enough to say "property owners of non-Estonian descent" To call them Canadians, as if we aren't, is lazy at best. We have to be mindful of what makes us look rather backward as an ethnic group.
Lots of non-Estos read our newspaper.

As for the Jõekääru debate, I am not informed enough to take sides.

Just hope we can wrench our leadership away from the rather insular, cocooning social groups before its too late to save the many wonderful patches of Estonian -Canadian heritage we have built with roots over 60 years old.

Seems that those committee members who find it so difficult invite fresh blood into the fold or to delegate work to experts are destroying vital pieces of all of us.

Divisiveness, exclusionism (a word the great PR/conceptual thinker and artist, the late,greatly loved (by "Canadians") Peeter Sepp, coined)-- all the things I've experienced in community choir committees, co-op communities and other arenas where power grabbing is a sport and snobbish pretensions and delusions of professional know-how abound. The greater good and our mutual aims are tossed in the wind. We need visionaries- big thinkers - and experts -- not insecure nay-sayers. Best wishes always, M.

Yes - I agree that creating a greater population density in the zones mentioned would IMMEDIATELY create greater toxicity for our Joekaaru neighbourhood. Think how this is going to affect the groundwater as new septic systems and an increase in toxic household chemicals gets dumped into our groundwater - not to mention more sump pump water floods every spring. We live in a swamp for heaven's sake. To pay off some lawyers we are jeopardizing our immediate environment? That's nuts. Let's grow out of our World War 2 mentality and instead of moving into the future looking into our rear-view mirror, let's train our children to take leadership roles in creating new solutions to problems that face every community in the world.
I would move if this beautiful community were to become more and more high- density with each passing financial crisis for the camp.

Definitely the main thing that is needed is for the council or group that makes the decisions to open doors to experienced people with the necessary experience, know-how, and hence confidence to simply take things in hand and raise funds for well-thought-out, revenue-raising schemes that will also benefit the community socially or culturally.

A call for the submission of proposals from experienced people with track records in relevant spheres is required. Eric Tanner's efforts and proposal are worthy of praise and a beginning to laying a foundation for a more realistic, pragmatic and positive open approach. MORE proposals are needed pronto until some viable solutions on a broader scale surface and are integrated in such a way that benefits all. .

Fund raising and management in times of monetary crises require experience, creativity and pragmatism. It is not something that volunteers should have to tackle alone.

The Joekaaru Estonian childrens' camp has a small enrollment due to the narrowly focused program it offers. I see potential in raising funds for an updated 21st century heritage camp that pays some of the bills? Also there are some great ways for that property to pay off that won't disturb nature or the community's peace - I can think of at least one way.) -- business acumen and vision and can-do attitudes must be invited into the official decision-making process. It is not a question of who's who or entitlement in the Estonian community, or of age...it is one of know-how and willingness and vision for the long-standing Estonian community principles that need not be toppled and need not exclude non Estos.
JMTCW

It is refreshing to see a private individual committed to the public good! Good advice all - take it!

Henry Gotfryd,
landscape architect

A conservation agreement sounds like a good idea. It is logical and beneficial to all concerned in the community.

We should take this a good starting point to move forward.

HGL