Skip to content

Letters to the Editor: May 21, 2014

Council insists on Willingdon library At the City of Powell River committee of the whole meeting on Thursday, May 15, the mayor and council, with Councillor Myrna Leishman being the only one opposed, passed Resolution 12-190 [“Library location put to

Council insists on Willingdon library

At the City of Powell River committee of the whole meeting on Thursday, May 15, the mayor and council, with Councillor Myrna Leishman being the only one opposed, passed Resolution 12-190 [“Library location put to public,” February 26].

It reads:

"Whereas: council has approved Willingdon South as the preferred location for the new library; and council is confident in and supports the planning process for the new library as developed by the Library Board of Trustees; therefore be it resolved that: council encourages the Powell River community to support the fundraising efforts of the library board for a new library at Willingdon South; and council is committed to holding a referendum on the question of building a new library prior to approving its construction.

Here we go again. Council and the mayor are not listening to the taxpayers of Powell River or the library board’s own chosen consultant who told them the majority of citizens do not want a library at Willingdon. They are ignoring the largest petition in the history of Powell River with over 5,000 signatures.

It is obvious council, except for Leishman, could care less what the taxpayers think or want. Where have we heard this before?

If there is a referendum, it will be about approving the funds for the old arena site only.

As taxpaying citizens, our only recourse will be at the voting station come this November.

Elaine Teichgraber

Willingdon Watch Group


Dam good idea

Psst! Wanna hear a really good idea that will save the province and shower us with riches for decades to come? Are you ready? First, we’ll take some of the most fertile and productive farmland in all of Canada and submerge it [“MLA calls land reserve changes deceitful,” April 2]. Then we’ll rename the Peace River valley. How about Old McDonatlantis. You know the song: Mr and Mrs Columbia owned a farm, oh my God it’s gone. And on that farm they raised a family, oh my God they’re gone! Wait, it gets better. Then we’ll ramp up human-caused seizmic activity (hydaulic fracturing) while rendering vast amounts of precious water permanently useless. All in the name of powering up a behemoth carbon-emitting industry (liquified natural gas). Such is the saga of Site C. Does the “c” represent clairvoyance? Or plain old crazy? We’ll decide. Wait a minute, we’re not allowed to do that.

Steve Perkins

Blair Road, Texada Island


Climate action research

I am responding to the “Climate crisis hype” letter in your May 14 edition. I was curious about the two people that were quoted, so I did a little research. “Professor” Bob Carter has been a professor in the past, but Carter is no longer a professor. In addition, Carter is not, and has never been, a climate scientist.

Roy Spencer is one of the directors of the George C. Marshall Institute. This institute maintains that the scientific evidence is uncertain that smoking tobacco causes cancer, that acid rain exists, and that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) cause ozone depletion. Spencer believes that the theory of evolution is false. Spencer is also on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. This organization believes that the earth and its ecosystems were created by God, and that climate change isn’t a serious problem, because the earth and its ecosystems are “…robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.”

Rather than believe what the above two gentlemen have to say about climate change, I feel it is prudent to believe what over 97 per cent of the world’s climate scientists believe. And that is that climate change is a very serious problem that will become more serious, and is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The only good news, is that if we quickly reduce our GHG emissions, the “worst case scenarios” of future climate change can be avoided. If enough of us can persuade our governments to take immediate and serious action to reduce GHG emissions, there is hope for future generations.

Brian Voth

Finn Bay Road