Unfair tax
I understand that City of Powell River Council recently came under attack from supporters of the residential flat tax. I am writing to express my support for council’s decision to get rid of the tax over seven years [“City council reaches taxing decision,” March 11].
The flat tax portion of our property taxes is clearly unfair and results in a greater tax burden for those less able to pay.
May I remind council that the flat tax was allowed by the provincial government in 1989-90 because the practice of assessing property only every two years resulted in dramatic jumps in property values—and assessed values. It now assesses property every year and that problem is largely solved. The flat tax is a solution to a problem that no longer exists. We will be well rid of it.
Hugh Cooper
Atlin Avenue
Stream contamination
Westview’s Squatter’s Creek was destroyed 50 years ago by our city fathers when they allowed the dumping of garbage in the creek gully that later became the playing fields of the old Max Cameron Secondary and J.P. Dallos schools.
Myrtle Creek remains a salmon-bearing stream and its watershed is the source for the domestic consumptive wells of Paradise Valley residents. This creek has not yet been destroyed, but its water quality has been jeopardized by another ill-advised action of yet another generation of city fathers who approved the stockpiling, in the headquarters of Myrtle Creek (at Powell River airport), of 20 years of Willingdon Beach incinerator ash. This ash was tested as early as 1995 and it was shown to have exceedingly toxic levels of copper, lead and zinc [“Concerns about airport landfill bubble to the surface,” October 2012].
The environmental risks posed by this stockpile have finally been recognized by the province and by the previous mayor and council, but no action to date has been taken. We are hoping for a quicker response from our new mayor and council. We would like to know what actions they are taking to resolve this environmental threat to Myrtle Creek?
Jack Dice, Butedale Avenue
Herb Gawley, Padgett Road
Bill protects security
I’ve stood with City of Powell River’s mayor, council, and the people of Powell River on countless occasions. Our relationship has typically been informal, friendly and effective. I am grateful to receive their thoughts (albeit expressed more formally than usual) on Bill C-51 [“Council supports resolution,” April 22].
It is important to note Bill C-51 is designed to protect Canadians’ security so that we can enjoy our freedom. Yes, it is designed to strike against one kind of freedom—the freedom of a terrorist to operate against Canadian interests.
Bill C-51 updates the powers of CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service), which have barely changed since CSIS was created in 1984. It gives CSIS the power to disrupt the travel of terrorists and of people intending to commit terrorist acts, and updates its capacity to parallel other Western democratic nations, such as Sweden, Denmark, France, Australia and the US.
The proposed approach would include safeguards, such as judicial authorization—this is not found in many allies’ legislation, which rely on executive authorization. Canada’s approach would require court warrants, which are typically slower and more cumbersome than executive approval, when the proposed activity contravenes charter rights or would otherwise be contrary to Canadian law.
Given that the bill treats the economy as a matter of national security, some have expressed the concern that peaceful protest demonstrations against things like LNG, pipelines, or logging will be treated as terrorist acts under Bill C-51. The bill originally stated that activity undermining Canada’s security “does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression” (Section 2 (i)). However, the bill has now been amended. By removing the word “lawful”, the government is responding to people’s concerns about a possible chill on peaceful advocacy. The change signals a distinction between a terrorist act and a peaceful act—one that might infringe on the law, but not be a threat to national security.
This is a modest bill that increases protection against immodest violence and other unexpected threats against Canadian security.
John Weston
MP for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country
Fairness in taxation
I think most people would agree that taxation for the common good is essential. I think most would also agree that systems of taxation must be fair. But what is fair? Is it fair if those who have earned less, inherited less or acquired fewer assets are expected to pay the exact same amount as those who have earned more, inherited more or acquired more assets? This is what a flat tax means—that everyone (regardless of economic means) pays the exact same amount. Personally, I don’t think a flat tax is fair and neither does the province which has now made it illegal for any municipality to introduce such a tax [“City council reaches taxing decision,” March 11].
A common tax rate (or percentage) based on property values seems much more equitable. Those who have the economic means to own and maintain more valuable property should, in a civil society, be willing to pay more based on the value of their holdings. With children going hungry in Canada—and even in Powell River—it seems reasonable to me that those who have more, would be motivated to pay a little more to ease the burden on those who are less fortunate.
I understand a group of individuals disrupted a recent budget consultation meeting to attack City of Powell River Council’s reasonable plan to reduce the flat tax over a period of seven years in order to re-establish fairness in taxation as laid out in the 2014 sustainable official community plan. (Interestingly, the previous council was also committed to eventually eliminating the flat tax.) I think council is to be congratulated for holding its ground, and I hope it will also explore rescinding the generous tax break given to Catalyst Paper Corporation which results currently in higher residential property taxes here in Powell River than in comparable coastal or Vancouver Island communities. Does Catalyst continue to operate in communities that do not offer a tax break? If so, does this tax break really mean much to corporate Catalyst? Would eliminating it mean more to residents?
Claudia Westland
Chilco Avenue
Life at sea
Well it has been a great year of fishing, one would think. However, we had better wake up before more species are gone and/or closed to sport fishing in Powell River and surrounding areas.
Did you see many photos of prawns, cod or halibut this fall or winter? Probably not, because they were all closed for months to sport fishing.
Closing an area enables stocks to rebuild and spawn. However, when we as locals park our boats only to see hundreds of commercial crab traps pounding the foreshores of Powell River and three shrimp draggers, dragging in areas closed to prawning, it boggles the mind that the department of fisheries and oceans (DFO) allows this. I don’t blame the commercial fishermen, they are simply doing what they are allowed to do.
We need to set up buffers around our city’s shoreline to keep pressure down. Not only that, when an area is closed it is closed...no dragging. There are trillions of hectares of water to drag and crab so why do it right on the coastline of Powell River, especially when so many sport fisheries are being closed?
We as sport fishers must abide to Rock Cod Conservation Areas [“For the love of cod,” December 3, 2014]. In these areas there is no hook and line fishing allowed, period. This is to avoid by-catch. Funny that in an area closed to sport prawning, you can drag for shrimp. No by-catch, you say? I guess the hundreds of birds hovering over a shrimp boat while it pulls its net aren’t eating all the by-catch that is thrown over.
As far as numbers of crabs left over after the commercial crab boats left the south end of Powell River, that’s simple—just ask all the people who live in that area. You may need ear plugs because most of them are not happy and have witnessed this for months.
How do we make a difference? Let’s start by contacting the Sport Fishing Advisory Committee, also Sport Fishing Advisory Board, DFO and the fisheries minister. Just state the facts, in other words, the truth.
Sam Sansalone
Powell River Outdoors
Harvesting too close
Island Timberlands has begun to clear-cut close to our Powell River residential neighbours [“Harvest plans cause stir,” April 29].
I believe forests and their wildlife are valuable, not just for money.
I’m not against logging. It’s one of the biggest employers in Powell River. Lots of friendly folks work there. I am for sustainable and reasonable logging, though. Island Timberlands’ clear-cutting is not. So sad.
It’s too close to residential areas. Many people, tourists, and wildlife are attracted to Powell River because it looks fabulous and green. Clear-cuts look ugly when next to residential, recreation, and tourist areas. That’s going to negatively affect our local economy and life.
I understand it is legal for Island Timberlands to do that. But doing the legal thing and doing the right thing with communities are two different things.
Francois Carpentier
Invermere Court
Garbage control
Everyone has some kind of problem with garbage somewhere [“Littering issue more to do with birds,” April 22]. The City of Powell River needs to step up its garbage control when the garbage bags are out. Side lift trucks are the way to go with your locked-top garbage containers, one for garbage and one for recycle. The household uses the kitchen catchers and fills the two-wheeled container. Likewise, the recycle container is filled with recycling. They are then set out on the street, locked with a safety latch. The side lift truck picks them up on garbage day. No more bird problems and no more critters. The city is clean and something to look at. It works in Squamish very well.
Clifford Lang
Squamish, BC
Message for seniors
It seems that the Motor Vehicle Branch cannot leave seniors alone.
First it came up with DriveABLE, which was a disaster [“Simons presses for review,” January 15, 2014]. Now it is targeting seniors at the age of 80, regardless of their driving record.
They are to have a complete medical for which they have to pay. Hearing aids, if they are deemed necessary, could cost up to $6,000, pretty steep for anyone on a pension.
By the time they are finished with all these tests seniors could feel quite depressed, not a way to end one’s golden years.
It seems there was not much thought given to this practice. I believe that when one’s ability to drive is not comfortable, most people would give it up—not a decision to make just because of turning 80. Many 80-year-old people can drive as well as anyone else. Let the driving record be the guide and family members can decide when one is not capable of driving, not someone who is trying to justify their position by demoralizing seniors, telling them that they are ready for pasture.
Remember, we will all be there one day. What a time to look forward to.
Richard Dignard
Alberni Street
Stop the clearcut
Island Timberlands is about to clear-cut our town [“Harvest plans cause stir,” April 29]. Some say they own the land or the trees and have a right to do so. But what about our rights and our children’s rights to the forests that are the heart and soul of our town? What about taking into account what is ethical and sustainable?
Who benefits from this devastation? Not our community, not our children, not our economy. There is nothing sustainable about the way this is going down. This is purely a cash grab by corporations and shareholders who couldn’t care less about Powell River.
When do we say “enough is enough” to corporations which are destroying our home, our ecosystems? When do we band together and say, “The health and well-being of our community needs to come before senseless corporate greed?”
The reality is if we all work together, we can prevent this senseless devastation of the forests and habitat we all know and love. It won’t be easy, but it is possible.
Kaia Sherritt
Abbotsford Street
