Letters to the Editor: June 20, 2012

Clarification

I’d like to clarify the quote that appeared at the bottom of the Peak article on the field school [“Field school delves into aboriginal history,” June 13].

As non-natives we came here and claimed title to land, took resources, and asserted government—all without aboriginal consent. That, in my opinion, remains a black mark on our shared Canadian history. We have been using native resources without permission for generations.

In the proposed treaty for this region the Tla’amin (Sliammon) First Nation people are not considering making huge demands of us. They are not going to require us to live by their ancestral laws, nor are they demanding back the fee simple private property and natural resources that we currently own and have benefit from. Instead, if ratified, the treaty will clarify the terms by which they are willing to share their territory with us newcomers.

As newcomers who have been living here without a treaty we have broken our own Canadian laws and traditions. Whatever the Sliammon people decide in their treaty vote, we as non-native people need to continue to work to find ways to build relations with the indigenous people in whose territory we reside.

Keith Thor Carlson

Saskatchewan

I am writing to voice my opposition regarding a proposal that would bring Vancouver’s garbage to our town for incineration [“Global companies eye mill site for waste-to-energy,” February 22].

Powell River has had its share of heavy industry, indeed it was built on it. The town has worked hard in recent years to shed the image it carries of being simply an industrial town and to begin developing a tourism and eco-tourism industry featuring our clean air, water and beautiful natural environment. We are also in the process of becoming an attractive retirement community and a great, affordable place for young families to buy a home and raise a family. We have received the honour of being officially named a Cultural Capital of Canada, in part because of International Choral Kathaumixw but also because of our vibrant arts community and our commitment to cultural activities. We have been featured in many magazines and newspapers in the past few years as an attractive place to live, though we do lack a suitable library for a town of this size.

All of these efforts would be sadly thwarted by the proposed incineration plant. Who wants to move to a community that receives and processes Vancouver’s garbage? Who wants to risk buying a home in a community that is sure to see property values drop if this proposal is “successful?” What current homeowner wants to see their already flagging property values drop further in response to this plan? Who wants to breathe the particulates from such a plant? Who believes the air and ocean around Powell River would be as clean as it is today?

I strongly oppose this proposal which would have Powell River receiving and incinerating Vancouver’s garbage.

Donna Vance

Zilinsky Road

I’m one of the old guys in short pants riding around Powell River [“Two wheels instead of four,” May 23]. One morning I was walking home from the centre of town in the pouring rain when a luxury vehicle stopped alongside. A voice said, “Hey, bike guy, you’re getting soaked.” He offered me a ride home. This was very much appreciated. The good Samaritan was His Worship Dave Formosa.

I didn’t vote for him last time. But, I will next.

John Uren

Kiwanis Avenue

It has been generally reported that, through cost-cutting measures, City of Powell River council was able to balance the 2012 budget, that the reported property tax increase would be similar to last year at 3.8 per cent and that increase would be applied to reserves and/or asset management (replacing aging infrastructure) [“Council holds line on tax hikes,” May 9].

Having just received my 2012 city property tax invoice, I was dismayed to realize that my year over year increase was not 3.8 per cent but rather 9.1 per cent. I now realize that not included in the 3.8 per cent are the general flat tax and utilities—garage, sewage and water—which have an additional tax increase up to 10 per cent.

I can barely manage this type of actual increase. What happens when the tax revenue from major industry, equal to 16.58 per cent of total tax revenue, defaults?

I do believe that council has gained an appreciation for our dilemma. Let’s hope they are up to the challenge. No new spending.

Paul McMahon

Invermere Court

This letter is about what we know and what we don’t know. According to my Property Tax Notice for 2011, if I was 65 I would pay $275 less [“Council holds line on tax hikes,” May 9]. In the next 10 years everyone who finished high school with me in 1972 will be paying the senior’s rate. I’m told that the City of Powell River is reimbursed the amount of the homeowners’ grant, and the additional senior’s grant, by the province. There is no loss of property tax revenue to the city because of these grants.

We know that a new Powell River Public Library will cost money. We also know we are going to need to do something with our sewage and that will cost money. I’d like a new library. I don’t need a new library.

This we know:

Any money borrowed has to be paid back.

We are going to have to determine how we deal with our sewage soon.

The mill is our cash cow; it pays more taxes than anyone else in Powell River.

Catalyst Paper Corporation spends millions of dollars locally in wages, direct purchase of goods and services and has donated thousands of dollars.

This we don’t know:

How many of us will be alive when any new loan is paid in full?

Will the city survive if the cash cow dies?

How do we force a bankrupt company to pay back taxes?

Will the provincial government continue to reimburse the cities and towns across BC for the senior’s grant as the boomers become seniors?

What infrastructure are we going to need to replace in the next five, 10 or 15 years?

Would a new library cost less to operate and maintain than the existing one?

Henry Hill

Bowness Avenue

Saying that libraries are obsolete is missing the forest for the trees [“Libraries lose touch with reality,” June 6]. Libraries are the beating heart of a community; a vital resource that ensure while technology brings us closer together, it does not tear us apart.

A library is not simply a bunch of books on shelves; it is a place where seniors and authors gather to tell stories, where the imaginations of children light on fire, where kind staff aid people with special needs to use computers, where people who cannot afford e-readers or Internet access are not denied knowledge or culture as a result of their financial limitations.

A library is a place where we can see faces, hear voices and trade smiles while we trade ideas. A library is a place where in a world that encourages us to keep moving, keep doing, move on, get out, keep going...we are encouraged to stay, to sit, to breathe and to read.

Libraries instil amazing values in us. We are trusted, we are equal, we can learn, we can do, we can share, we can. Some of the world’s most successful authors, business people and leaders, began with nothing and will attribute their success with starting out in a library. They consumed knowledge in a place that welcomed them, that encouraged them, that believed in them.

It’s true that with evolving technology information can be accessed anywhere, anytime but at a price that is much more than monetary. It is because of changing technology, because the world is moving us away from public buildings and spaces and each other, that institutions like our library are even more critical.

I encourage those who do not see the merits of a library, whether it be new or old, to go and stand in the aisles. Look around, listen and you will see and hear and feel that believing a library is no longer necessary is like believing blood doesn’t need to reach your heart anymore. “What is more important in a library than anything else—than everything else—is the fact that it exists.” Archibald MacLeish.

Jenessa Blanchet

Sanderson Road