Absurdities and questions in housing commentary
Re: “’Density’ can mean more homes, more trees, and more parks,” commentary, Dec. 29.
The commentary leaves many unanswered questions. Not least being the invisible data behind the claim that Victoria’s “tree canopy” has “increased by an amount equal to 60 soccer fields” in the period between 2013 and 2021.
First of all, the suggestion that “tree canopy” as defined in legal terms could have increased by any measurable extent during such a short period of time is illusory.
Tree canopy can be defined in several ways and without some definitional clarity about what the authors mean the statement in their opinion piece is meaningless.
Generally, from a legal point of view “tree canopy” means the total area of the tree or trees where the leaves and outermost branches extend, also known as the “dripline.”
Further, the concept only applies to trees capable of providing shade and does not apply to shrubs and small immature plantings. Given the fact that the same period cited in this commentary also saw the complete destruction, in one area alone — James Bay — more than half of a well-treed city block where the Village Green Apartments once stood has been turned into a construction site during that time.
In fact, the suggestion, advanced by at least one person who is in a clear conflict of interest as the principal of a local development and construction firm, is simply absurd.
Carl Peterson’s points in his commentary on Dec. 21 were well taken, closely argued and, on the evidence, there is nothing in the Dec. 29 commentary to suggest that this city is not entering blindly into a development frenzied panic which will serve both the environment and the people of Victoria very badly.
The kind of density being proposed and built will not mean more trees, will definitely not create more parks — whether it creates affordable homes is also open to serious question. That, however, is a matter for further debate.
James King
Victoria
Look under the rocks, but leave the pet projects
Victoria Mayor Marianne Alto stated in an interview the city needs to “look under every rock” for savings with respect to the 2024 budget. What a misleading metaphor.
Mayor and council debated and voted upon budget item questions that would be subject to city staff review. Budget items reviewed by staff could have led to cost savings proposals or, worse yet, exposed some serious cost overruns.
With a group of five like-minded councillors, often joined by the mayor, many of those votes were a foregone conclusion. The result was that controversial budget items will not be reviewed by city staff as they have been given a free pass.
What happened to having a look under every rock?
You have to wonder whose interests are being served by mayor and council. Alto stated the budget process involves “a lot of balancing of competing interests.” The first draft budget suggested a 8.37% tax increase to property owners.
Now that council has successfully sheltered their pet projects from city staff eyes, they’ll likely start flexing some muscle by putting the squeeze on their usual punching bag, Vic PD’s budget.
Who cares about our concerns at the level of crime and disorder in Victoria outlined in the MNP Governance Review.
Let’s pretend everything is hunky dory downtown and keep building million-dollar condos with no parking stalls. That ought to do the trick.
Ronald Webster
Victoria
As time marches on, calls to action ignored
Re: “Indigenous think tank giving up hope on sa国际传媒 acting on commission’s calls,” Dec. 21.
That media interest in the 94 “calls to action” is flagging has been obvious for some time. For a long time, Tom Allen did his best at the CBC.
Media does not so much shape society as mirror it, and the cause of faltering government support may therefore reflect faltering public interest.
Of those 94 calls to action, 74, a huge proportion, lie at the feet of the federal government. This is to be expected since the residential school system was largely created by the 19th century federal government, an entity that still exists but now is dealing with a vast and complicated country set in a turbulent world.
Ten calls to action are directed at municipal governments, the level of government arguably close to the daily needs of people, responsible sanitation, water supply etc. Other government agencies are, of course, also involved.
A curious subtext is in play. “Government,” the federal government, in particular, is seen in rather despotic terms: in the 19th century (especially) it acted as a malignant despot, foisting on the Aboriginal population unwelcome interference in the lives of its members, but now that same source of power is hopefully a benevolent despot, ready to amend the errors of the past.
It remains a despot according to this world view, in spite of our adherence to democracy and the idea that the people can from time to time “throw the bums out.”
To my way of thinking, this apparent binary view of government harbours a serious gulf of understanding. How do we bridge that gulf?
But another problem is this: Time only moves in one direction, and the past cannot be rewritten, no matter how hard we try. How then do we deal with the future legacy of the past?
Boudewyn van Oort
Victoria
Thatcher, Reagan, Gates made many lives better
I always suffer mixed feelings when reading Trevor Hancock’s columns. I am moved by his good intentions, but distressed by his instinct for getting the story not merely wrong, but often totally bass ackwards.
Such was a the case in his Dec. 24 diatribe concerning neoliberalism. While I have no investment in the ideology itself, it’s impossible to argue with the results.
When Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan entered the picture, their respective countries, and the West in general, were in decline and under siege, not only economically and militarily, but most importantly, in their hearts and minds.
Ten years later, they were once again muscular and in ascendance. Along the way they knocked Russia and the Communist bloc into the gutter, freeing millions of Eastern Europeans from dictatorial oppression.
His problems with inequality are also out to lunch. Bill Gates didn’t make his billions by stealing from the poor; he started a business that created hundreds of thousands of high-value jobs that generated not only untold billions for his employees but also tax revenue for all levels of government.
Pension and insurance funds that were wise enough to buy into his company will be housing and feeding widows and orphans for centuries.
While I concede my interpretation of history is also vulnerable to criticism, compared to Hancock, mine is at least fact-based. His is pure fiction.
But there are more serious criticisms to be levied against his analysis, starting with the totalitarian nature of his prescription. He imagines a society where we all live in 15-minute anthills and eat crickets, perhaps being allowed to take a short jaunt to the seashore every couple years.
Except, of course, for the elites, who zoom around to Paris and Copenhagen and Doha, planning our salvation.
Michel Murray
Saanich
What about the streets that are almost closed?
Re: “Near empty bike lanes? 74,000 trips a day!,” letter, Dec. 5.
Conspicuous by their absence: No reference to Richardson or Vancouver streets. The fact that Vancouver has been virtually closed was a ridiculous decision.
It is a very wide street (including boulevards) and could easily have been designed to accommodate both vehicles and bicycles.
The result being excess congestion on both Quadra and Cook. Cook is often close to gridlock.
Gordon Hansen
Victoria
Questions remain about Sidney Island deer cull
Re: “Parks sa国际传媒 says 84 deer killed in $834,000 cull using helicopter,” Dec. 20.
Does that cost include all the money that was spent planning this event?”
My calculations say that the price is $9,928.58 per deer. With 1,765 pounds of meat harvested, or 21 pounds per animal, that puts the cost at $472.52 per pound.
I have harvested quite a few deer in my lifetime, including fallow deer.
Getting only 21 pounds of meat per deer tells me they cut off the hindquarters only, and threw the rest away. Any deer I have harvested, after processing, is 50 pounds and up.
The final irony is that the shooters hired came from the United States and New Zealand. sa国际传媒 has produced some of the finest marksmen and markswomen in the world.
This is government efficiency at its best!
John Money
Duncan
Simple questions about the deer cull
Re: “Parks sa国际传媒 says 84 deer killed in $834,000 cull using helicopter,” Dec. 20.
What was the decision-making process?
Who profited?
Who is accountable?
Deer meat at $475 a pound sets a new inflation standard!
David Buchwald
Victoria
Were we getting the best return?
Re: “Parks sa国际传媒 says 84 deer killed in $834,000 cull using helicopter,” Dec. 20.
We’re definitely not getting enough bang for our bucks.
Fergus Mooney
Victoria
SEND US YOUR LETTERS
• Email: [email protected]
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, sa国际传媒 V9A 6X5
• Aim for no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not bepublished.
