Fletcher’s view like a broken record
To the Editor,
I must applaud Jill Mayne’s letter regarding AV News’ continued airing of Tom Fletcher’s opinion pieces in your “B.C. Views” section. While she was upset with his piece on public art in Victoria in particular, I find the continuing diet of his right wing rants so predictable that he is becoming a bore.
Beyond that however, is that a constant barrage of one side of social commentary is detrimental to fostering public dialogue and potentially dangerous. Fletcher constantly uses half the facts and innuendo to prop his viewpoint in his most recent article on B.C. as a “global outlaw”.
He ignores the fact that oil tanker traffic would increase under the proposed plans, that fracking releases huge volumes of methane into the atmosphere and seriously compromises ground water, let alone the fact that we should be investing in alternative energies not fossil fuels.
In the case of Site C dam he attempts to skewer opposition to it as knee-jerk environmental wrong thinking. He ignores First Nations’ land claims issues, the loss of agricultural land (at time when we’re going to need more of it!) and the fact that the only reason for Site C is to power Christy Clark’s LNG plants that we shouldn’t be building in the first place.
British Columbia already has a hydro surplus that we sell to the U.S. and won’t be needing in the forseeable future.
Please, dear editor, seek out some alternative views to balance the conversation. Tom Fletcher is fine once in awhile (it gets my blood pressure up) but a steady diet is (yawn) boring.
David S. Morton,
Port Alberni
Editor’s note: BC Views runs in every Black Press-owned paper/ website in British Columbia, every week.
Cantimber needs to find new home
To the Editor,
Re: Cantimber doing its best, says worker, Letters, Oct. 13.
Mr. Moore, has sold out to the company store. Cantimber doing its best, he says? Well, its best isn’t good enough.
I am not a NIMBY, but a resident who lives in a four-street block of houses surrounded by businesses of all kinds.
However, I too was affected by something during the time that Cantimber Biotech was experimenting and I ended up getting sick with a burning throat, burning eyes and a nauseous feeling when walking early mornings.
I put it down to residents who were burning bad wood etc. in their fireplaces along the dike where I walk most days.
So you see, one doesn’t have to be a NIMBY to suffer the effects of making steam by this company. If the government and city council are really interested in the health of Port Alberni and its residents, they will shut down Cantimber and let them find a place more suitable.
Though how that works who knows, if they are pumping out toxic particles, they will still be polluting and that’s not good enough.
And I totally agree with Vanayssa Love’s comments. I was just sorry I was unable to attend the meeting on Oct. 13.
And if in fact Cantimber is allowed to start production again, I believe that there will be more complaints that will have to be dealt with as we are not better educated as to where our health issues came from.
You don’t have to be a scientist to figure that one out.
Only this time you will be dealing with health officials and any other governing body.
Carole Walker,
Port Alberni
Waterfront not the place for Cantimber
To the Editor,
I am writing to express my concern over the issue of smoke emissions produced by the Cantimber Biotech operations and the broader issue of the location of this operation in our community.
It was astonishing to hear at the recent community meeting that the federal and provincial governments lack jurisdiction in monitoring and enforcing the air quality for the Cantimber operation. This means that no level of government can enforce penalties on this company when something goes wrong.
This operation is the wrong one in the wrong place, as declared by a community member at the public forum. The reality: a smoke-spewing plant on the waterfront of our community, steps away from residents and their homes. Taxpayers are justifiably angry and worried not only for their health, but also for their property values. That anger and frustration was evident at the public meeting.
Is it not the responsibility of local government to work with the Port Alberni Port Authority to insist that the community has clean air to breathe, and to ensure that the businesses that operate in this community do not threaten the health of its residents?
The port authority has a moral obligation to residents to respect their health and welfare, and to comply with development goals set out in the strategic plan of this city.
Rosalind Chapman,
Port Alberni
