A more-with-less approach
I’m writing in reply to three items in the January 23 edition of the Peak.
Firstly, I was delighted to learn that nurse practitioners may finally be used in Powell River, since these are highly-educated individuals who could provide much basic medical care. I read that family physicians will support a temporary clinic, but this sentence confused me: “When a new family physician is recruited for Powell River, then this clinic will stop.” Why could we not have an ongoing clinic with nurse practitioners? It’s about time we put this excellent profession to better use.
I was also delighted to learn of the possibility that an expanded library could be housed at the former Brick building, which was not available when earlier plans were made. This would give the library 2,400 square feet more than the new building plans offered, and the location is on level ground. It is also close to many other places frequented by Powell Riverites such as Powell River Recreation Complex, post office, supermarkets, car repair places, coffee shops and restaurants, stores, financial institutions, medical and pharmaceutical offices, et cetera. People could stop at the library on the way to and from so many other places, thus reducing our carbon footprint by driving less and attracting more patrons. People with mobility issues and no car of their own could also access this location much more easily.
Ecology asks us to reuse things whenever possible, instead of buying new. The Peak reported a while back that Powell River Historical Museum and Archives is also considering moving into a larger old building, so this is a commendable more-with-less approach. Many libraries in bigger cities are in busy locations where people are already spending time, even inside shopping malls, “meeting people where they’re at.”
So why the rude and disrespectful editorial cartoon? I did not sign the Save-Willingdon-Beach petition, but if a large building in a more central and accessible location has now become available, then earlier plans need to be reconsidered. How does such reconsideration merit that level of rude criticism?
Adela Torchia
Dorval Avenue
Library site leadership
On behalf of Willingdon Watch, I would like to acknowledge City of Powell River Councillor Chris McNaughton for his upcoming motion to have the board of Powell River Public Library consider the old Brick building as the site for a new library [“Councillor plans to bring back library location issue,” January 23]. Our group encourages the rest of council to support him as well.
The facts do not bode well for the library board. The facts are, that Powell River has imminent and long-term infrastructure needs whose priorities must take precedence over a shiny, new, waterfront library; that there are significant shortfalls in available capital; that there is only one taxpayer; that when there is a referendum, it could very well end up with no new library at all.
If we do indeed care about sustainability, how could council, in all sincerity, ignore the short- and long-term fiscal realities of our city, and not spur the library board to take advantage of this opportunity? The building is larger than what would have been built, it is arguably in the best location and it’s ready to move into. One must ask, does the library board want a new library with more space, or does it want waterfront?
Our group supports a new library at the old Brick location and the spirit of McNaughton’s motion.
Elaine Teichgraber
Willingdon Watch
Cart before horse
As BC Ferries comes to the City of Powell River seeking approval for the planned terminal upgrade, I have what would appear to be a very simple question. Why would we approve terminal upgrades before we have full details on a replacement vessel? If we accept the planned upgrades, we may be unwittingly limiting our options when it comes to the choice of a replacement vessel [“Councillors use leverage,” January 23].
If we as a community feel the best design for a replacement vessel would ultimately require millions of dollars to be spent reconfiguring terminals that had only just been upgraded, that factor will inevitably influence BC Ferries’ decision as to which vessel design it thinks is best suited to meet our needs. Because of its commitment to financial sustainability, it will be strongly motivated to choose a vessel design that can easily be accommodated in the upgraded terminal, not necessarily the best vessel for us as a community.
So why are we being asked to put the cart before the horse? Maybe we need to hold off on approving the terminal upgrades until we have a clear idea of what our replacement vessel is going to look like and what its berthing requirements will be. Then we can proceed with terminal upgrades that will serve the new ferry rather than possibly wasting millions of dollars on the currently planned upgrades, or worse, ending up with a replacement vessel whose design is compromised by these planned upgrades.
John Wilkinson
Taku Street
