Rumours continue
This is part two of a two-part letter to the editor. See the Peak on March 18 for part one.
Now, I am not a “raging hippy” (not even sure I know what that is) that will raise a placard at the sound of a chainsaw. I recently spent the night at Tin Hat cabin. Spectacular. Spectacular even with the 360-degree view marred with countless small clear cuts, because forestry is a part of our economy and our heritage. Forestry is a part of coastal living. Why? Because we have a lot of trees. As far as I could see from that beautiful spot at Tin Hat were trees. And leading to those trees were roads—roads that allowed my family and friends to easily access the cabin.
The proposed logging is adjacent to one of the strongest tourist attractions this city has to offer, Willingdon Beach Trail. It is a thorough-fare for the entire town’s teenage population when accessing the trails or beach from their school. I have not once been in the area and not seen numerous users [“Fund for trees grows,” November 26, 2014].
So, again, why would we cut down a forest in the heart of our city that is marginal, to say the least, of generating a worthy return? Development? In a town full of vacant and derelict buildings and previously developed spaces? Really? I can think of some other urban forests lost to development in this town that now sit partially or undeveloped.
Let’s be honest, the only value a tree has to a logging company is one on the back of a truck. The only space that has value to some developers is one that is logged. I suppose it angered me because there seems to be a bigger picture that we are missing. Why is the quality of our life (yes, standing trees offer this as value too) and the future quality of our kids’ lives being decided by a few who don’t see an alternative value or a balanced approach? Or decided by those who don’t even live in our community?
When, and how, do we as citizens start to question our surroundings and their sustainability?
Graham Cocksedge
School District 47 teacher
Unfair support
Recently, in the national media, there have been articles pointing out the differences in federal funding between the ferry systems of Atlantic Canada and BC. In these articles our MP John Weston is reported as saying that ferries is a provincial responsibility and Ottawa should not interfere. As well, the Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt’s office states that there is a constitutional requirement for no money for West Coast ferries, or something to that effect.
If we can’t be as special as easterners, at least we are special in our own way as compared to the folks in the Lower Mainland including our fellow constituents in West Vancouver [“Commissioner proposes 1.9 per cent cap,” March 25].
Here in Powell River I pay marketing board prices for dairy, eggs and chicken to help support farmers. As well, the federal government gets every penny it can from me in income tax and my consumer spending is taxed at five per cent. Not to mention the various user fees I pay for certifications, licences and recently a passport. Even if I order something online outside of Canada the GST will be collected at the source or upon delivery for a service charge. Recently, it cost me a little over $9 so that I could pay $7 in GST. For the sake of the ferry passenger back East I’m doing my part.
But there is a group of citizens that don’t share the same burden as we do in Powell River and maybe Weston might find it a federal responsibility and burst into action. These are people who don’t care about the Canadian farmers and merchants or want to contribute to the Atlantic Canada transportation system and their extra MPs and Senators. These are the tax evaders that the federal government facilitates with a free service that is unavailable in Powell River. It’s a real nice deal for the cross border shopper. But then it might be another constitutional thing I’m missing out on.
Michael Muench
Jenkinson Road
