Letters to the Editor (part one)

The following are some of my letters to the editor over the past couple years. I have found, since submitting my first many years ago, that this is a means, one widely read, to express an opinion on events in the city and realms further afield. I fully encourage people to write letters to the editors of what some fondly consider our local rags, though don’t be surprised when they appear and are edited by the paper. In one letter I submitted the editor changed one word, eliminated one sentence and totally changed the context of what I was saying.

Re: Defiance will not help the Cable Bay cause.

So it appears that Cable Bay Lands Inc. plans to move forward without the RDN Lands and council in its infinite wisdom has given first and second readings to, “redesignate lands, amend the Urban Containment Boundary, and add site specific policy to permit a mixed use comprehensive development within the new ‘Resort Centre’ designation.”  How does one have first and second reading when the new plan for Cable Bay isn’t ready?   How can council make such a decision when it hinges on the outcome of fourth reading, likely in October, to adopt the changes, ie; Resort Centre, to the Official Community Plan?”
 If there is misinformation out there then it is the responsibility of all involved, developer, council, opposition, and newspapers, to provide credible information from which an informed opinion can be based. 
 As for this papers comment that “planning accounts for sprawl and development in the South End will help the downtown.”  This is a prime example of Urban Sprawl, need I remind you that there is room within what was the urban containment boundary for over 35,000 more residents?  Need I also remind you of the impact on the downtown from development in the North End?
 I close with a quote from your own editorial, “It is misinformation of this sort that damages legitimate efforts to question real flaws either in the development process or within developments

Re: Councils process found wanting

At the latest city council meeting I asked the question, “When does a city policy become worth less than the paper it is printed on?”  While this was with regard to how council could even consider Newlook Capital’s attempts to "strata convert" the 109 unit rental apartment building at #1 Chapel St. when city policy sates it will, “prohibit the conversion of existing residential rental buildings to condominium status when the rental vacancy rate falls below 3% in Nanaimo,” further events during the meeting would pose other interesting questions.  Oddly enough, being facetious here, council decided, despite heartfelt pleas from a number of seniors impacted by the potential stratification, to postpone a decision until the middle of September.  Shame!
Moving to further events spoken of, apparently annexation of Regional District Land into the municipality is a non issue, kudos to the 8000 people who signed the electoral response forms and the volunteers who collected them.  The strange part; it appears that Cable Bay Lands Inc. plans to move forward without the RDN Lands and council in its infinite wisdom gave first and second readings to, “redesignate lands, amend the Urban Containment Boundary, and add site specific policy to permit a mixed use comprehensive development within the new Resort Centre designation.”  How does one have first and second reading when the plan for the development won’t be ready for at least a week?   How can council make such a decision when it hinges on the outcome of fourth reading to adopt the changes to the Official Community Plan?”
Looks like we have a lot more than the cost of paper to worry about in Nanaimo? 

Re: South-end park funds called 'waste' of cash

To say spending money to improve a city park is a waste until you eradicate the drug problems shows the predominantly reactive nature of dealing with such a complex issue.  Those who have long lived in the South End, 15 years in my case, recognize the issues with addiction have been going on far longer than since the Hiltz’s have been in the area.  We recognize the problem cycles from good to bad, not only in this neighbourhood but others as well.  A recent example; since the lot behind McDonalds has been fenced in the numbers of people hanging out in the immediate vicinity has dwindled.  While it is true they have simply been moved on, this is all part of the cycle.
One has to laud both Tanya and her husband Doug for taking on the task of organizing a block watch program.  Programs like these are beneficial not just for peace of mind but for the sense of community they bring as well.  However, statements like that made above devalue the hard work of the many others also working to make the neighbourhood the special place it is.  The simple fact is the more families and others use Deverill Park the less likely those practicing illegal activity will want to be seen in the area. 
As long as the province fails to provide enough services for addiction we will always have a problem; as long as landlords, local and absentee, fail to inspect their properties on a regular basis we will always have a problem; and, until we come together as a community we will always have a problem