Opposed to removal
I don’t know why I was annoyed reading about Sino Bright strong arming our elected city council [“Sino Bright responds,” June 1] to fully support the application to remove 30 acres of land from the provincial agricultural land reserve (ALR), but I was.
I always thought the ALR was set up to prevent developers from trashing farmland with buildings and blacktop; to protect that land to, you know, grow food.
There are other vacant land parcels and derelict buildings in the Powell River area that could be used for a school without destroying arable land.
Maybe not 132.2 acres, as stated in the article, but to me that is a huge piece of property, equivalent to 83.5 soccer pitches.
I get the uneasy feeling that once the school and dormitories are built there will be surplus land to be sold to developers waiting in the wings to make a bundle.
I think most people are opposed to removing land from the ALR for development, and in this particular case having all the trees adjacent to their neighbourhoods cut down, too.
The forest near Brooks Secondary School is used by residents for recreation and as a home for wildlife. It also plays a huge part in erosion control in this hilly town.
As stated in the article, “If city council does not support the exclusion application, Sino Bright will withdraw it’s offer on the land, according to the letter.”
I, for one, hope they do withdraw their offer and either look for something less contentious here in Powell River or move along.
Steven Grover
Algerine Place
Too many unknowns
I applaud Mayor Formosa and the councillors for trying to diversify the city’s economy [“Council supports Sino Bright land exclusion,” June 8], but is this the way to do it? There are too many unknowns for me to support it.
How many acres, how many students, how many jobs? These answers should be more concrete by now. Why do they need 30 acres for two buildings? Only a guess, but Brooks Secondary School might be five acres, including playing fields.
There was a greenhouse in the original plan. Will they grow their own food so they don’t have to purchase locally?
Will fluency in Mandarin be a requirement to get any of the jobs?
Why can’t they buy non-agricultural land reserve (ALR) land across the road and install a covered overpass to Brooks?
Can our water and sewage system support this project?
Since they will not have to pay property taxes, how will the city profit?
Jason Schreurs’ editorial [“Agricultural hinge,” May 25] makes me wonder if Sino Bright’s offer of land to the incubator farm project is to combat the 2007 agricultural land commission’s reasons for the ALR exemption denial.
We cannot buy land in China so why are we selling land, especially ALR land, to China?
This is not mutual investment; this is short-term gain for selling off our children’s long-term future.
Arthur Richards
Gordon Avenue
Madcap scheme
Richard Dignard has hit the nail exactly on the head regarding the DriveABLE fiasco [“Letters: Self-serving data,” June 1], that the computer test is self-serving data that makes no sense.
Targeting seniors is discrimination and compelling a person to the expense of travelling to Courtenay and being subjected to sit in front of a computer is nothing short of dictatorship.
The previous system entailing a driving test worked adequately and gave one the chance to prove their ability to drive. It is high time common sense prevailed and abolished the madcap DriveABLE scheme and return to the status quo.
It is significant that the spate of road deaths and accidents reported involve teenagers or young adults rather than seniors.
J. Thomson
Centennial Drive
