Thanks, John Horgan, for telling it like it is
Re: “Comments by Alberta premier on discrimination against unvaccinated ‘laughable’: Horgan,” Oct. 13.
How refreshing to hear Premier John Horgan state: “I’ve got an opinion, what does it matter? Let’s get the work done.” Since the rise of social media, people think their opinion on every little thing matters and needs to be shared online so the world can be enlightened.
Imagine if more people shared Horgan’s outlook and recognized that their opinions really don’t matter!
Instead of wasting untold millions of hours posting, following and commenting on social media on a daily basis, how much more work could we all get done?
Premier Horgan, you said a mouthful in just a few words. Thank you.
Sue Doman
Saanich
Single file, please, when cycling on roads
I have lived in North Saanich for 20 years. As cycling has become more popular as a means of fitness and not just a mode of transportation, there has been a huge increase in the number of bicycle riders enjoying the perfect ride around the peninsula.
These riders ride singly, in small groups or huge pelatons. The large groups regularly ride two to three abreast and on our narrow peninsula roads restrict other cyclists or vehicles from passing. Motor Vehicle Act, Part 3, #183, #2 (d) states: a cyclist must not ride abreast of another person operating a cycle on the roadway. This rule needs to be enforced.
Also one way of making these cyclists more aware of traffic around them would be the requirement of a mirror on their bicycles.
Nicky Tutt
North Saanich
Editorial cartoons are just plain bland
I always enjoy a good cartoon on a newspaper’s editorial page as they are traditionally reflective and thought provoking. Indeed, the nuance provided by a delicate balance of satire, irony and humour provide insight far beyond what mere words can do.
Alas, I seldom see that in the TC as the cartoons tend to be just plain bland, echoing a mundane view of frequently minor topics with little “value added” insight. Indeed they often just affirm local run-of-the-mill bias.
Pity.
Barry Rolston
Victoria
Ban or limit clutter of election signs
I am writing to express my pleasure with Adrian Raeside’s cartoon in regarding political signs. I could not agree more with his sentiments, and it is something my wife and I have been grumbling about this year.
The waste associated with these signs is preposterous, not to mention the eyesore as a result of this ridiculous name recognition competition. It is time for the powers that be to ban, or limit, political signs and replace them with a way to get information relevant to the actual election and all the political candidates.
A candidate that refuses to put signs out for environmental or monetary reasons should not be penalized, but instead, should be lauded. With the technology around these days, it’s time to move on from the garbage placed in every median and grassy area (I’m not sure how this works in the artificial turf areas of Langford), and to provide voters with environmentally conscious access to the information that matters, not just names on plastic.
Rob Walker
View Royal
A cash crop of housing threatens rural areas
Put four raw eggs in a box, and call it ALR Land. Add a couple of stones that stand for housing.
The eggs are unlikely to break with careful handling and some cushioning.
Fill the box around the eggs with stones. It will not be long before the egg shells cannot take the pressure of the dense intrusions.
Rural is the land version of raw fresh-laid eggs in shell. That is how fragile rural is. Rural cannot exist with continued densification.
Rural is quiet roads, clean air and like-minded neighbours using and nurturing the land.
Density? Voting is a numbers game.
The more urban voters “buying in” for cheaper housing with “green space and views” the more support there will be for urban services and even more housing.
One rural property or farm may have a family of four to six residents. Isolate one of the acres and put up six homes on generous lots and you have a flexible number, 24 to 36 residents, all requiring services and likely the addition of secondary suites in each house to deal with the housing “crisis.” Multiply that by the number of units in a group of townhouses or a high-rise condo or apartment building. Roads, parking, gas stations, transit all voted in by a previously urban population with urban expectations. Rural can not survive that pressure.
The definition of rural: “Of or pertaining to farming country as distinguished from city or town; pertaining to farming or agriculture.”
Density in a rural community is more about a cash crop of house building and its consequences, a requirement for urban services which will always be voted in by the dense urban residential population outvoting those few who cling to a rural way of life.
Karen Harris
Saanichton
Ukraine policy and nuclear threat level
Last week President Joe Biden said: “We’ve not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis.”
Biden’s warning aligns with the Doomsday clock which is pegged at 100 seconds to midnight, the highest threat level ever. I have asserted in several letters that Russia’s attack on Ukraine could have been prevented if NATO forces had been deployed into Ukraine during the three-month Russian pre-invasion build-up.
There is no way that Putin would have attacked under those circumstances since an attack on NATO forces would have meant the end of Russia and his personal demise.
Now we continue to hear talk of the possible Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons. This is what war planners call escalation and presents the greatest risk of nuclear war.
This failure to deploy NATO forces has made the world less safe in addition to bringing great misery and destruction on the Ukrainian people.
Before the invasion, Biden said he expected Putin to invade Ukraine. The only positive for the present strategy of the Ukrainians doing the fighting and the dying is the degrading of the Russian military and possible instability of Putin’s regime. However, this policy increases the nuclear threat.
Wayne Cox
Saanichton
Restrictions needed for developments
I happened to go downtown the other day, something I try not to do if at all possible. What I saw made me sick. Building after huge building, cranes everywhere. Construction on every corner. It is starting to look like Vancouver.
I know progress happens, it does, but did anyone in Victoria get any input to the size of these buildings?
My whole family was born and raised in Victoria ages from 40 to 90; none of us want these drastic changes to come to our little city. They say if you build it they will come, well then if you stop building maybe they will go elsewhere. It sounds slightly unkind, but we don’t want any more people moving here.
Developers are laughing all the way to the bank, they don’t care that traffic is worse; there’s, more water usage more hydro usage and less parking etc., etc.
There is only one solution I can see. Every developer that wants to build in downtown must first build two floors underground for the parking for the people in the building.
Next, the first floor should offer reduced rent for people who work downtown, that means $800 a month for rent or $350,000 for condos. Then the second floor is also reduced rent for family doctors that work in Victoria only.
Then, lastly, the roof must be made very strong so a garden can be put up on the roof for everyone in the building to enjoy, especially with developers buying up all the farm land.
If the developers don’t like the idea then tell them no, and maybe they will move on.
Janet Baldwin
Victoria
SEND US YOUR LETTERS
• Email letters to: [email protected]
• Mail: Letters to the editor, sa国际传媒, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, sa国际传媒 V9A 6X5
• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not be published. Avoid sending your letter as an email attachment.
