News Leader News
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
- February 14, 2006
Dear Editor;
The bad news is that we are all going to experience 'another' large increase in our ICBC insurance rates in order to offset the supposed, huge increase in property damage and medical claims.
You and I, the people who drive with common sense and don't have accidents, are once again expected to dig deeper and pay out for the irresponsible who steal cars and go for joy rides, the street racers, the road rage, the aggressive drivers who feel that those abiding by the law don't belong on the road and those who don't display as much common sense behind the wheel as the rest of us have in our little finger, if I missed anyone, then all I can say is 'sorry' I haven't yet thought up a category you fit in.
Where are the rewards for the good drivers? Sure we enjoy a little decrease in our rate, BUT, we are still assessed the increase to cover for the bad driver! This is Democracy? ICBC owns the only show in town, you either pay or walk. Where is our freedom of choice?
When dear old Dave came up with ICBC, it was a good idea. "The People's Non-Profit Insurance Corporation?" Now it's a little more than a BC Government Cash Cow! And as for the non-profit insurance corporation, if it's non-profit where does it find the money to purchase loser Shopping Malls? Guilford Mall, Surrey, BC? and who knows what else.
This sort or reminds one of the 1967 Expo in Montreal, only with a new twist, or is it? Millions of dollars in over-runs, so all of Canada paid and paid the bill, did we ever see five cents returned? I guess not, the only ones who reaped the benefit were the large corporations and the City of Montreal.
So is this ICBC huge increase a Gordo Campbell dodge to cover financial short falls on the 2010 'Flash in the Pan?' A flash in the pan where once more, you and I (in the BC Interior) will be very fortunate if we enjoy even a one percent return on our dollars invested? But in return, you can bet that the sponsoring corporations will make nothing but big bucks from the 2010 Winter Olympics.
It's long past time that ICBC was deregulated, or deregulated to the point where it has to compete on the open market. Then and only then will we again have a choice of our insurer, insurance companies will again compete to insure us, The 'Safe Common Sense Drivers.'
I, like I'm sure you will agree, have reached the point where I've drawn the line, I refuse to continue being the scapegoat and paying the bill for insurance on my vehicle, when I know very well that I'm also paying for those who couldn't give a damn about the law or the rest of us. If they want to drive with total disregard, then pay their own bill.
- Don Kieler, Chase
Dear Editor;
I have thoroughly enjoyed Dawn Johnson's recent columns, possibly due to shared interests. And I believe that no one is completely unbiased: she's not and I most certainly am not. Would it not be a dull world if we all agreed with one particular person's political punditry?
Having said that, I would challenge a few of her assertions in "People confused about Oisms,"
1) "Conservatives believe in power for the elite few" -- not even a Conservative will deny that, but "they had no regard for the poor" needs to be explained. They did after all recognize that they depended on the poor to maintain their elaborate lifestyle. Accordingly, they donated just enough to church-sponsored charities to assuage their consciences and, hopefully, to pave their way to the Great Beyond.This still holds true for today's Christian Conservatives -- as well as Christian Democrats. Are you confused yet? If not, you soon will be.
2) "Christianity is democratic. I could never understand Conservative Christians" -- this may be a little harder to explain --- I believe, most of us nothing could be easier to understand than the fact that Jesus was a Democrat. But Conservative Christians believe in Theocracy (government based on religious beliefs) and that their peculiar brand of Christianity should be Canada's religion, as portrayed in The Old Testament but led by Jesus who brought us The New Testament; and that Theocracy should reflect, not New, but Old Testament teachings. ie) Your body is not your own; the male shall dominate the female; literal translation of the scriptures, Creationism, etc., ad nauseam. Since Theocracy is out of the question due to the many religions in Canada. Conservatism is as close as they can come. Don't ask me to explain this again, I'm just as confused as you are!
3) "The opening statement of the American Constitution recognized that everyone was born equal." If ever a quote was more misconstrued than this one --- unless it's the one about everyone bearing arms -- I have yet to come across it. How many Americans, when reciting The Pledge of Allegiance, realize that the people who wrote and signed this farce were slave owners and slave traders? How many realize that one of their most revered, Ben Franklin by name, kept slaves for sale chained to the wall of his store?
4) The rest of her column I find to be quite factual, except for the part about Communism building walls to keep people in. This is not completely accurate -- they did just that in East Berlin, but they also wanted to keep subversives out -- and we were told that nothing could be more ridiculous.
Now who's building walls and fences but America and her Israeli acolytes? And who is shooting people for trying to breach those walls? Obviously, the US and Israel believe that building walls is necessary to protect their way of life -- only, now we hear no widespread dissent.
Is there a point to this letter? Yes, I am in complete agreement with Dawn's opening statement about most people's political naively. I also believe that there is a cure for that affliction. Why doesn't each elector have a voter card that they can obtain only after passing a simple test based on all political parties' ideologies and how each party platform would affect the country? No doubt, we'd start with very few electors, but the numbers would rapidly increase as voters began to understand the results of their actions. Is that hard to understand? Well, what can you expect from someone who is so easily confused?
Sincerely,
HP Toews, Princeton
To The Editor;
As a resident of the Town of Princeton I was appalled at the Plot Plan and covering letter to be presented to the Mayor and Council Re: "Town Square Project, to close off the Bridge Street end of Vermillion Street to resolve traffic issues, to improve and promote more downtown retail activities and beautify our downtown Core."
Would it not be discrimination against the Owner/Operators of Businesses to close off the end of Vermillion Street adjacent to Cenotaph Park? This plan calls for removal of the storefront Parking spaces as well as those presently provided on the opposite side of the Vermillion Street meridian adjacent to the present Park.
Will this plot enhance the convenience for the patrons of the Vermillion Street Businesses and Medical Centre that will be adversely affected ?
The purpose of this bizarre plan is to enlarge Cenotaph Park and provide a fountain plus a gazebo-style band shelter which I take a strong objection to regarding destruction of the peace and tranquility presently enjoyed in honouring the memory of my fallen comrades of World War 2, Lest We Forget. Would it not be disrespectful to establish a Carnival in a Cemetery?
If motorists and pedestrians have a safety issue to contend with now, I fail to see any improvement by diverting traffic onto Veterans Boulevard from Bridge and Vermillion Streets. The parallel parking on the park side of Bridge Street will be replaced with angle parking. So where will the improvement be when it is hazardous enough now when backing out into on-coming traffic?
To this scenario consider making a left hand turn off Veterans Blvd. onto Bridge Street when motorists have to watch for pedestrians and ease into the intersection to look for on coming traffic both ways because the parked vehicles make the visibility difficult.
The authors of this project need to get the approval of Town Officials but should not neglect the opinions of the general public who will be considerably inconvenienced all year round, not just in fair weather when the fountain and bandstand aren't frozen over.
- Kay Hardy, Princeton
To The Editor;
In last week's paper Brad Hope and Michael McLean's concerns about the proposed coal-fired generating plant were labeled as negative and they were encouraged to make decisions based on accurate information, not on outdated technology.
The writer further suggests that the Compliance Coal representative is willing to explain the process, the 100-million dollar investment, the 70 permanent jobs, the numerous temporary construction jobs, the spinoff and the wide variety of possible benefits.
I am quite sure that these two men who took the time to investigate this proposal and offered comment are not in any way adverse to well-paying jobs and economic spinoff so the basis of the complaint about their comments must revolve around their concern about the history of coal-fired generating plants and their effect on their surroundings.
I have had the pleasure of meeting with Compliance Coal representatives on two occasions, once with the former president and on that occasion I asked these two to accompany me because, like most people I had no previous knowledge of these plants. The questions they asked were far above my understanding of the subject and without them I must admit I would have gleefully entered into any level of support requested. The answers were promised but to this day they have not been given. This is a development that is not reassuring when you represent the welfare of an entire community.
The request resulted from the advice of a former Princeton mining engineer and revolved around the supply of random samples which would be sent to an independent assay lab, be assayed for contaminants which all coal contains and then be provided with the explanation of how their process would remove those contaminants. It would seem to be a fair question when you consider that if the contaminants are not removed then they are free to spread around our valley.
This same concern was the basis for the 18-member Regional District Board, the 8 member Similkameen Planning Society and Princeton Town Council requesting from the Environment Minister that the project undergo a full scope environmental assessment to ensure that we will all receive those answers. There are over 1,000 people working in the Princeton area that are employed in environmentally-friendly businesses, would it be right to jeopardize them, their families and their future without getting all the facts?
In 1990, when asked about a proposed coal-fired electrical plant, Mayor John Rubis stated, "We must enlarge our tax base, we won't do it by sitting still. We need growth, no question about it, but we don't need it if it's going to be detrimental to our environment, or harmful to our way of life."
Rather than criticizing those who are raising questions about possible damage to our area, I believe we should be thankful, after the last time I checked it is the same water you're drinking and the same air you're breathing. And if they err, they err on the side of cleaner water and cleaner air.
- Mayor Randy McLean, Princeton
Editor:
I attended the public meeting on February 7th at the Chamber of Commerce to receive the information offered by Compliance Energy regarding its proposal to build a Coal-fired Electric Generator on the Similco mine-site southwest of Princeton.
I was grateful for the clear presentation provided by Mr. John Tapics, but I confess that I remain both skeptical and suspicious of the proposal. As I explained to Mr. Tapics, just about everything he had to say was tainted with the suspicion created by the clever tactic of Compliance in proposing a plant which would produce 49 megawatts of power, just one megawatt below the 50 which would have triggered a thorough environmental review by the provincial government.
When I proposed to Mr. Tapics that he could easily allay those deep suspicions by raising the megawatts proposed to 50, thus triggering the full environmental review, he simply said that to do so would delay the project for six months, which was inconvenient. I said that I thought such inconvenience would be justified where the health of the citizens of the community of Princeton is concerned.
Indeed, I am inclined to view the 49 megawatt proposal as a rather shoddy move which shows the contempt that the management of Compliance must have for the citizens of this community.
At the meeting, much discussion revolved around the proportions of coal and wood that would be burned to generate the electricity. I realize that the burning of coal is bound to produce more noxious pollutants than the burning of wood. But both would produce the same quantity of carbon dioxide, the green house gas which, despite all the protestations of those who market fossil fuels, is the major cause of the global warming, now reaching the point where even the most innocent must give pause.
So when Ontario, Alberta and other jurisdictions are busy phasing out the burning of coal to generate electricity, why on earth is our provincial government merrily encouraging British Columbia to phase it in? That was not a question worth asking Mr. Tapics, and I certainly cannot count on getting an answer from our elected representatives in Victoria. My guess is that neither our provincial government nor our new federal government has any intention of honouring the Kyoto agreement, so we can burn as much fossil fuel as we please and let our grandchildren worry about the collapse of our environment.
Sincerely,
M. Burbidge, Princeton
To The Editor;
I would like to respond to a letter to the editor last week from Ernie Willis regarding my negative views on the proposed Compliance Energy coal fired generation plant. Ernie states that it is the responsibility of each of us to get accurate information and make our decisions on the basis of that information and not on outdated technology.
He then explains that Compliance has made all that information available. I agree we need the information, I do not agree that it should all come from the company. While their presentation and slide show is well prepared with bright colors and pretty pictures, it leaves me with more questions than answers. There is a process however that would provide all the information we need. It is called an Environmental Review, a government process mandatory for any plant of 50 MW or larger. This plant is to be a convenient 49MW.
The company says it would take up to six months to complete the review and that does not fit with their scheduled sale of power. They also say that they will meet all emission standards using the latest technology. But they are not using the latest technology. The latest technology produces electricity from coal without burning it.
Check coal gasification (ICCG) on the internet. Worldwide there are now hundreds of these plants operating with many more in planning, one slated for Saskatchewan. Recently the Alberta Government announced that it is working with Texas on a zero emission ICCG plant.
The proposed Princeton plant does not remotely approach this standard but maybe it is the best we can expect and maybe the trade off for jobs makes it acceptable. However it is a very serious matter, for example, we know that mercury will be emitted and that the US Government now estimates that 16% of all it's newborn babies will have some degree of brain damage as a result of mercury poisoning.
Scientists now say they do not know what level of mercury is safe, only that it is much lower that what was previously believed. This plant has been in the planning for years and we will be living downwind from it long into the future. Is it negative to suggest that if it is a good idea now, that six months from now it will still be a good idea?
The Environmental Review process is there to protect us, let's take the time to make sure we get it right.
- Brad Hope, Princeton
