Community ignored?
Dear Editor:
RE: ‘Arrogance of council,’ Feb. 15.
Sonia Day’s letter is still in my daily thoughts over three weeks later – she hit the nail on the head.
I attended the Centre Wellington council meeting a few months ago (about a five-storey building on the corner of St. Andrew Street East and Gowrie) and what I witnessed was shocking. The town hall was packed with concerned citizens, every room was at capacity, and the standing room was shoulder to shoulder.
Everyone except the builder and his consulting entourage strongly condemned the plan citing numerous concerns. The well-pointed speeches, especially from the representative of the neighbouring Melville church highlighted many problems and concerns. It was a tense meeting, and it was evident our community was very upset with the consideration of breaking multiple rules to appease a developer.
I recall leaving the meeting thinking to myself, “Wow what a landslide. There is no way our council will approve the developer’s plan without concessions made on the height and parking spaces.” I felt empathy for the developer with the massive amount of time and expense they incurred with zero chance of approval.
This brings me to “shocking”. How can the council experience the community outrage and simply ignore their voices? Are we missing something here? Does the council have stronger relationships with the developers than the citizens who elected them?
Sonia’s opening comment “It’s coming folks whether we like it or not” may or may not be true, but let’s remember when we have our next election, the people control government not vice versa.
Chris McLean,
Belwood
‘Already sweltering’
Dear Editor:
RE: ‘Short-sighted bill,’ March 7.
Thanks to our shortsighted provincial government, Enbridge fuel customers will continue to pay for the expansion of natural gas lines into new Ontario housing developments, and – unwittingly – add more greenhouse gas emissions to heat up our already-sweltering planet.
As letter writer Gord Cumming said in last week’s Advertiser, “Continuing to subsidize more fossil gas use in the midst of a climate crisis is lunacy.”
The Ontario Energy Board decided in December it was time to end these subsidies, but Mr. Ford announced immediately his government would overrule this very sane recommendation.
A more farsighted leader would be chomping at the bit to promote – and maybe even subsidize! – super-efficient heat pump technology for heating and cooling in all new subdivisions.
Liz Armstrong,
Erin
Ford’s fuel folly
Dear Editor:
RE: ‘Short-sighted bill,’ March 7.
Kudos to Gord Cumming on his insightful comments regarding the proposed overturning of the Ontario Energy Boards (OEB) changes to the provinces energy systems.
The OEB (which is charged with safeguarding consumers in electricity and natural gas markets) had ruled that if Enbridge wants to keep connecting new customers to the natural (fossil) gas systems, then it should pay these infrastructure costs up front.
This would ensure that if a transition to increasingly available alternatives such as heat pumps and district heating occurs, as it must to avoid complete climate breakdown, consumers would not be left paying for stranded assets.
The decision by the OEB to shift the costs to developers “upfront” by 2025 would be an incentive to “choose the most cost-effective and energy effective choice.”
Energy minister Todd Smith seems to believe that encouragement to select the most “cost and energy efficient” system would increase the cost of new housing. However research has shown that by avoiding fitting a new home with both gas and electric infrastructure, costs go down. In fact, high efficiency heat pumps are more affordable over the lifetime of the equipment than new gas hookups.
Instead, the Ford government wants to ensure that subsidizing costs for Enbridge and developers lands squarely on the backs of all Enbridge consumers.
For someone who has consistently railed against the carbon tax (which is returned to Ontarians quarterly) as “taking money out of people’s pockets,” Ford seems quite content to allow us to cover costs for Enbridge.
What he fails to acknowledge is that if his government followed the OEB’s recommendations we would be moving towards not only cheaper housing costs but a more liveable planet.
Sue Braiden,
Erin
‘Price gouging’
Dear Editor:
RE: Over a barrel (a portion of the editorial titled A different time), March 7.
If Dave Thomas (founder of Wendy’s) were here today he’d likely agree surge pricing is price gouging.
It’s not like every person who spends a little bit of money on lunch is as calculating, cheap and as incomprehensibly greedy as these executives. It’s not as if the big wigs at Wendy’s really need the additional income.
If they want business, they should not force their customers to pay more during peak business hours. Mr. Adsett is right on and it fires me up to think that people should have to pay premiums without knowing.
Excessive customers is no cause for higher prices. It’s almost like the powers that be think it’s a complete joke. It’s not a trivial thing. Inflation isn’t a game.
It’s just fast food, but you should consider the precedent. Prices should remain constant and not ever be subject to fluctuation.
I am ashamed of Wendy’s and most especially of their greed.
Surge pricing hits your wallet hard and restaurants shouldn’t conduct business this way! I hope Dave Thomas would agree.
Donna Caldwell,
Erin
*Editor’s note: Wendy’s officials say changing to what the company calls “dynamic pricing” would not involve raising prices at peak times, but instead lowering them during less-busy times.
Carbon tax ‘spin’
Dear Editor:
I listen carefully each day to the spin by the Liberal federal government on the carbon tax including rebranding efforts to change it to a carbon rebate. It reminds me of an old analogy: “you can’t put lipstick on a pig…”
One of my favorites is “people will be so upset if a government cancels the rebate checks received each quarter. Most people get more back than what they pay.”
Lets think about that …
When farmers pay up to over $100,000 per year in carbon tax to dry grain or heat barns they do not get that back in rebate. Truckers who move the products – not only farm products but every single item they move, which is most everything – pay a carbon levy on fuel.
From the start of farming or manufacturing to sale, each step along the way is going to lose; this extra tax costs more. Each business along the way passes the costs on to guess who – all of us.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that everything costs more. And yes, building materials for homes is in this too … So this not about people getting a bit back on home heating and fuel at the pumps – and smile and be happy about it.
Let’s get real: it defies all logic that the government is taxing and giving you back more than they took.
Thank goodness people are seeing this. It just baffles me each day that the Liberal government tries to sell that it’s a rebate, free and clear, to Canadians. It would be more palatable to say we are charging you a penalty tax for driving so you will stop driving your cars; and turn the heat off to your homes in winter to tackle climate change. It can’t and doesn’t work that way.
And by the way, Pierre Trudeau tried punishing people for driving cars in the 1970s with a fuel price jump, when it went from gallons to litres. It didn’t work then and it wont work now.
Doak McCraney,
Guelph
Nuclear waste risks
Dear Editor:
In Ontario people should know that a nuclear waste dump will be established soon in South Bruce (Teeswater).
It hasn’t happened yet but it could poison our fresh drinking water if a container leaks into the ground.Lake Huron is only 30km away, plus the site is near the Teeswater River.
Gord Brinkham,
Maxwell
Exhaust other options
Dear Editor:
Why is there even a whisper of talk on expanding medical assistance in dying (MAID) to include mental illness when the government refuses to fund research into the studies of psychotropic drugs such as ketamine, LSD, psilocybin, etc. (drugs that have recently come to the fore as having very promising results in treating those with mental illness)?
If “mental illness” is a criteria to acquire assistance in killing oneself then, surely, all avenues of treatment must be exhausted before allowing the illness to be deemed as sufficient to warrant MAID service.
I assert that all illnesses crossing the threshold for MAID must be thoroughly explored and evaluated and all available and potential treatments must be investigated and attempted before we accept that death is the only appropriate treatment.
Hannah-Joy Lippai,
Arthur
Personal creed
Dear Editor:
I wish to be of service to others as I journey through life. To do this I have adopted this creed as a guide to be followed in dealing with my fellow citizens of Earth.
To train myself so that never under any circumstances will I find fault with any person no matter how much I disagree with him or her or how inferior their work may be, as long as I know he is sincerely trying to do his best.
To respect my country, my profession and myself. To be honest and fair with others as I expect them to be fair and honest with me.
To be a loyal citizen of my country and speak out when you feel its needs a voice. To speak of it with praise and act as a worthy custodian of its good name.
To be a person whose names carries weight wherever it goes. To base my expectations of reward on a solid foundation of service rendered. To be willing to pay the price of success in honest effort.
To look upon my work as an opportunity to be seized with joy and made the most of and not as painful drudgery to be reluctantly endured.
To remember that success lies within myself – in my own brain. To expect difficulties and forge my way through them.
To avoid procrastination in all its forms, and never under any circumstances put it off until tomorrow, what could be performed today.
To take a good grip on the joys of life. To be courteous of others and faithful to friends and most of all family.
Find it in your heart to live peacefully under the same tree.
Earth is our heaven and heaven is our Earth. Take good care of it and those who inhabit it.
Jen Tullio,
Rockwood
‘Monopolizing’ downtowns
Dear Editor:
I am writing this letter in response to the Minto Pride committee’s endeavour to raise Pride banners and place Pride flags at various stations in Palmerston for the months of May to September.
I initially want to be very clear that my objection of these endeavours does not stem from any homophobic view. On the contrary, I agree the LGBTQ’s right to celebrate in June is keeping with the democratic society we live by.
What I do not agree with, as mentioned above, is the LGBTQ’s bid to monopolize our fair towns’ downtown for four months.
I cite other causes that have those months to draw attention to their causes. May is Breast Care Awareness and National Alliance on Mental Illness month. July is known as Family Reunion month. August is National Immunization and Don’t Be a Bully month. September is known as National Suicide Prevention Awareness and World Alzheimer’s Disease month. This list is certainly not exhaustive.
All I want is fairness to be exhibited in our fair town of Palmerston.
Heather Winn,
Palmerston
*Editor’s note: Minto council has approved the hanging of Pride banners on light standards leading into Harriston and Clifford, as well as Palmerston. There will be four Pride banners in each downtown (two at each entrance). Other seasonal banners will hang on the remaining poles.