Plan requires clarity
I have previously commented on the lack of detail/planning/organization for the proposed Powell River tech hub project. Two recent articles [“Tech incubator hangs on grant,” March 29] and [“Organizers explain tech hub idea,” April 12] provide no additional clarity on the subject of organizational planning and accountability.
The articles referred to Powell River Makerspace, Power River Technology Co-Op, Powell River Educational Services Society and community and business partnerships. Who has the lead/responsibility? Who would the city make the $200,000 cheque out to?
Why is the Townsite Market location the only site to be promoted? Clearly, a 4,000-square-foot facility would accommodate a startup tech hub. There may well be space available with modest furnishings and equipment at the local Vancouver Island University campus, spare facilities in School District 47 buildings or space at city hall with the library move, or others.
Why is City of Powell River the only entity being asked for a $200,000 grant? Not a loan, just give $200,000. Keep in mind that the city has already contributed approximately $170,000 for a climbing wall inside Townsite Market.
Have any potential tenants been signed up? Will the 8,000 square feet be dedicated to high-tech tenants only?
The front page photo for the April 12 story is of the Bardel Entertainment animation studio in the Okanagan Centre for Innovation in Kelowna. Bardel Entertainment, a 30-year-old company with a head office and studios in Vancouver, is an animation provider. It is of interest that the Okanagan College campus in Kelowna offers a two-year diploma course in digital animation.
This project is one of people/skill development for industry and the natural spinoff of new startups. The task is obtaining people and providing skills-training programs.
As to which is needed first, industry or skilled people, the debate is similar to what came first, the chicken or the egg. However, there was no mention of a chicken coop.
Paul McMahon
Invermere Court
Polarizing plastic
I read, with great enthusiasm, the opinion [“Editorial: Earth day every day,” April 19] in last week’s Peak by publisher/editor Jason Schreurs. He nailed it.
The polarization that exists with environmental issues, in that case with plastic water bottles, exists because of economics, which always seems to be the reason to avoid change. The same can be said of climate change and the reasons for not addressing it.
When we all realize the cost of not acting is greater and the whole business is no longer a personal agenda, but a collective one, big things will happen.
I am willing to bet that people with significant environmental concerns are now in the majority. Climate change-related matters are receiving daily attention in global media. However, there continues to be an influential chunk of the population that remains highly resistant to the changes we must make to re-balance our planet.
The plastic issue is just one example. Greenhouse gas emissions is the big one, so let’s get going on that one, too.
Bill Lytle-McGhee
Maple Avenue
