sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½

Reasons to not vote for anyone

Re: “Plenty of reasons for us to cast our ballots,” editorial, Oct. 15.

The editorial gave quite reasonable reasons to vote for someone in the provincial election.

However, I, as a serious democratic voter, cannot bring myself to vote for any of the four candidates in my riding, and here’s why:

I cannot vote for a representative of a party in which there are many who will not accept science as a reason to believe in something. I refer to COVID-19 and the precautions and mandates originating from Dr. Bonnie Henry. To disagree with Dr. Henry’s assessment of the seriousness of that pandemic, and the manner in which she carried out the mandates is to be ignorant of the disease process and the legitimate legislated power accorded a provincial health officer. (A PHO has near-dictatorial powers in a declared health emergency.)

I cannot vote for a party whose leader has a frightening animosity toward private property, and has sought to destroy it as a foundation of a civil society. Joan Turner’s excellent letter on Tuesday outlined it beautifully and succinctly, so I will not repeat it here.

I cannot vote for a party that, while championing that reasonable care be taken toward our environment, has similar, if more extreme, social policies to the government. That, and the fact that their social policies will bankrupt the province in no time.

As a confirmed capitalist, I cannot vote for Communist candidate for obvious reasons.

So, what to do? The answer, if one wants to keep one’s voting participation record at 100%, is to vote for someone who has no hope of winning. Since there is no “None-of-the-Above” selection, that would have to be the Communist.

A quandary.

David Hansen

Victoria

‘None of the above’ belongs on the ballot

The provincial election illustrates the necessity of having the option of “none of the above” on the ballot. The sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½ Conservative party taking over the BC United (aka sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½ Liberals) was like a mouse swallowing an elephant. Some sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½ Conservative candidates are indigestible for many people, yet those same people may want the current premier to be defeated.

Having the “none of the above” option solves the problem. If it is the “winner” in a riding, a byelection must be held immediately; all the candidates on the original ballot would not be allowed to run.

Yes, there is a financial cost, but that is preferable to having an MLA who would be an embarrassment to sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½

Kenneth Mintz

Victoria

From property rights to the rising deficit

Need more reasons not to vote for David Eby and his merry band of NDP bandits?

1. His dictatorial stripping of property rights. Our most expensive investment, our principal residence, is now subject to whatever whims he has in terms of zoning, use and forms of taxation. Why have our legal rights been retroactively removed? Oh sorry, we changed the goalposts midway through the game just doesn’t work in a democracy. Wake up people!

2. The exorbitant taxes (especially the property purchase tax) that only add extra fuel to the “cost” of purchasing real estate in sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½ Other provinces pay a much lower flat rate. Add these to the taxes added to all aspects of the housing market, and the NDP have compounded the affordability issues we face.

3. The ridiculous “rental” restrictions and again, retroactive stripping of the legal rights of people who have invested in rental properties, either for their retirement, or as a business plan to help them survive the economic vagaries of this province. Why have their rights been rescinded with a stroke of the pen?

4. The absolutely tainted “Landlord/Tenant” Act and ruling board, that clearly favours bad tenants. A major contribution to the “rental availability problem” we have. Every single landlord I know has suffered economic and emotional hardships from entitled tenants, these spiteful tenants holding them hostage with the sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½ Tenancy laws. Whether it’s the most affordable apartment out there, to luxury condos — add to that the average six- month wait time to get through the tenancy hearing process. Why would anyone want to be a landlord in sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½?

5. As others have pointed out, add the massive provincial debt and deficits, deadly drugs on the street, emergency room closures, emergency personnel being attacked on our streets, a health care system in disarray, and the decimation of nature all around us.

Not to mention the cost of living, which has been fuelled by the government’s lack of attention to the need for more housing (they could make it affordable with incentives, but choose not to…).

Time for a change. We need politicians who are truly willing to work and cooperate to solve these problems. Without stripping us of our legal rights.

Voting is quick and easy. This is your chance to make a difference.

Marion Evamy

Sidney

His climate legacy has been blighted

A few years after Gordon Campbell had left provincial politics and became sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½’s high commissioner to the U.K., he was introduced at an event in London with these words, “This is the man who was the premier when the most effective climate strategy in the world was put in place.”

As I recount in my book, The Carbon Tax Question, Campbell told me those words “sure made me feel good,” and added, “I think Canadians feel good doing the right thing for the right reasons in the right way.”

When he introduced his climate-action and carbon-pricing agenda in 2008, he indeed did the right thing in the right way for the right reasons, free of partisanship.

But now, by endorsing axe-the-tax John Rustad as premier, Campbell is exhorting us to turn our backs on “the right thing.” Worse, he’s turning his own back on what was the signature piece of his legacy as premier: the revenue-neutral British Columbia carbon tax that has been accurately labelled a “template for the world.”

I laud Campbell’s climate-action leadership in my book, plaudits that he earned. But after reading his commentary, I now feel only profound despair.

Sadly, by putting partisan politics in front of principles, Campbell has blighted his legacy. It is to weep.

Thomas F. Pedersen

Professor Emeritus

University of Victoria

Author, The Carbon Tax Question: ­Clarifying sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½’s Most Consequential Policy Debate

SEND US YOUR LETTERS

• Email: [email protected]

• Mail: Letters to the editor, sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½ V9A 6X5

• Aim for no more than 250 words.