Skip to content

Letters to the Editor: July 2, 2014

When no means no Stanley Park is Vancouver’s pride and joy for tourists and the general public alike. Notwithstanding, I am sure it is a constant battle to keep private and public development at bay.

When no means no

Stanley Park is Vancouver’s pride and joy for tourists and the general public alike. Notwithstanding, I am sure it is a constant battle to keep private and public development at bay.

Willingdon Watch Group’s mission is to preserve Powell Rivers’ nonrenewable waterfront park lands. They are not anti-library; many of the members are regular library users.

There is not one element of library functionality that is better served by the Willingdon location. Rather, the reverse is true, such as the safety concerns expressed by Councillor Debbie Dee quoted in the Peak article June 6, 2012, in relation to the intersection of Alberni Street and Marine Avenue.

“I’ve witnessed several accidents down there, so I don’t know why it says there are none,” said Dee, responding to a staff report. “I’ve also been in an accident on that corner. I also cross the street as a pedestrian several times a day because I park on the other side of the street and I’ve almost been hit, my staff have almost been hit and I’ve witnessed other people almost being hit.”

Willingdon Watch Group believes the general public and new library supporters have formally and clearly, on two separate occasions, said no to the Willingdon site as a library option (5,000-plus petition and Campaign Feasibility report).

The only meaningful way to advance the new library project is to remove the Willingdon site from the option list

The recent June 9 open house provided no credible option (costs and structural concerns unresolved). There were four seismic upgrades proposed with costs from $500,000 to $20 million. There is also the option to do no upgrades due to a grandfather clause in the building code.

Council has not stated its intent to upgrade or not. But, council had an open house to ask the public which of the two sites they preferred: The Willingdon site or the Complex, which will cost somewhere between $8 million and $28 million—the options just keep getting better.

Take Willingdon off the table or have a clear referendum—Willingdon, yes or no.

– Paul McMahon, Invermere Court


Change to recycling habits

I just came back from my first excursion to the recycling depot since the “new system”, having postponed the inevitable as long as possible [“Residents adapt to recycling changes,” June 11].

I left the house with three bags of recycling sorted, washed, sliced down the sides so no crumb could hide. I came back with one very full bag of clean “garbage.”

The young person at the depot was so patient, helpful, explaining over and over again to me and others there why and where each of our recyclables should go. He was only doing his job. But I am confused. I thought I was doing a pretty good job before of helping save Mother Earth and not adding to that massive plastic gyre out in the ocean.

Today I feel sad that I will be adding “stuff” into the dump. Is there some politician out there who can explain to me in regular English how this new system is going to help our future generations live in a healthy, unpolluted environment?

– Sharon Stedman, Gunther Drive


In-camera strategy

Reading the article on City of Powell River council closing doors on meetings to discuss strategy brings out some comments [“Doors close on strategy meeting,” June 18].

Some comments made by some council members on how to hold the meeting makes me think that they are in favour of not letting the public in on what they are thinking.

We, the taxpayers, elected council to represent us. They are our voice, our ideas, our plans for the city. They were not elected to sit there and put foward their ideas, their plans, et cetera. They should be listening to the public and putting foward the ideas of the majority of the voters. If this manner was applied to the meetings, there would be no need for closed door meetings.

If all council meetings were held in an open forum, the public would understand what goes on, what is being said and there would not be controversy about it after the fact.

Why is there fear of letting the public see and hear everything council does? We are just a small town trying to grow and be successful. What’s the problem?

The people and the council would be working together for the benefit of the city. As it is now, it is difficult to see any benefit to the city in what council is doing. Controversy is usually at the forefront.

Kudos to Councillor Russell Brewer’s effort. Maybe it is time to change how councils function. Look at the problems big city, provincial and federal governments are having, not always on what they are doing, but how they are doing it.

Are we afraid of change? It is time to take the bull by the horns and make a change for the better.

– Larry Law, Huntingdon Street


Too much to pay for

There’s been a lot of noise lately about the library location as if it were something that was just going to magically appear at no cost [“Library information gathering draws large crowd,” June 11].

We need food and water to survive. Having indoor plumbing is a bonus as well. We don’t need a library, it is a luxury.

We have a recreation complex that is under-used. If we build a new library will it be under-used?

I am a library user and I’d love a new library if I don’t have to pay for it.

Would you rather pay to replace/repair water and sewer lines that are reaching or have reached the end of their life span or pay for a library? Can you afford to pay for both?

Now let’s add the scheduled hydro and ferry rate increases and let’s not forget ICBC.

How many straws can your camel carry?

– Henry Hill, Bowness Avenue


Library completes cultural circle

I was at the PRISMA concert Saturday night and what a gala evening it was!

The music was thrilling; the energy of Arthur Arnold, Soyoung Yoon and the musicians was powerful. Looking through the brochure, I was struck once again about the power of Powell River community volunteering: billeting, driving musicians around, organizing ticket sales, advertising, stage setup, and much much more all accomplished by passionate Powell Riverites.

Arthur Arnold spoke to the value of what we have here, being a cultural capital since 2004. He talked about how everything is built on the shoulders of what has gone before and it is for us to carry that work forward. I’m sure all of us in the audience were puffed up and proud.

So after last night, I just knew we would get our new library. I saw people leap to their feet ecstaticly in appreciation of Brahms and Bartok—bathed in the glow of culture and emotionally moved by it. And at home after the concert, I was able to  search the Powell River Library website, click on the Naxos link and relive the beauty of those composers again (for free) http://www.powellriverlibrary.ca/content/free-digital-resources.  Human experience and ideas—culture—truly comes in many forms: musical notes, letters on paper as well as data on a computer.

Yes we are a cultural capital, albeit with one very short leg. We are one of the smallest libraries in BC, 70th out of 73.  But, as Arthur Arnold said, everything is built on what has come before. If we are to continue being proud of Powell River, now is the time, 20 years in the making, to complete the cultural circle and build ourselves a new library.

– P R Brown, Marlatt Avenue


Library important asset

I don’t understand the ongoing visceral opposition to a new library, which at times borders on the virulent. [“Taxpayers alert bring library into focus,” June 4th] Anyone who uses the library (and that comprises a very large segment of our community) knows we need a new one. It can’t be just a matter of affordability. $20 per year is not going to break the back of any household budget.  Why is it such a divisive, polarizing issue? Is it philosophical—sheer revulsion against public libraries? It’s as if the opponents, who presumably don’t use it and don’t believe in it (why else would they try to kill it?) are determined to deprive everybody else from enjoying it. A new library is not a liability to the town, as they are trying to portray it. It is, rather, a very important asset for a small city that is striving to re-invent its post-industrial economy and re-build a new tax base. It is a critical ingredient that makes for a vibrant, culturally-enriched community that will attract new people, new talent and new ideas to Powell River. The naysayers who predict that libraries are a thing of the past will, I believe, be proven as wrong as those who 20 years ago predicted the imminent demise of the printed book.  Of course, libraries do and must evolve with the times and new technologies, and that is precisely why we need to move away from the constricted, constipated bowels of City Hall to a new, poly-functional library that will give scope to these necessary changes.

– Tony Culos, Manson Ave


Consider the source

I am responding to the “Science is all about data” Viewpoint in your June 18th edition.  I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Cooper’s statement that “…science advances through hypotheses and testing of the results against real world observation …”

However, we don’t agree on the very important issue of climate change.

This will letter will be the fourth statement in our exchange through the Peak. I have enjoyed our conversation and believe that communication is healthy.  However, we could go back and forth for ages and I’m sure we wouldn’t change each other’s minds, so this will be my final statement in our discussion.

For those folks that are unsure where they stand on climate change, I urge them to look into the matter further.  There is a huge amount of material out there, so I would ask them to “consider the source” when they are researching.  My criteria for judging the reliability of a source include credentials, reputation, beliefs, and where their funding comes from.

Thanks for the lively dialogue, Ted!

 – Brian Voth, Finn Bay Road