Land swap deja vu
The plan to wrest this urban forest out of the Agricultural Land Reserve, as recently proposed by our city council, seems like deja vu all over again [“City council considers Sino Bright School land swap,” November 29].
Perhaps our council has forgotten that many residents are strongly opposed cutting down the forest near their homes to build the Sino Bright School.
Many were so upset by this planned project in 2016 that they wrote to the Agricultural Land Commission, which was probably one of the factors when the ALC refused the city’s application.
Now our council has decided to up the ante and offer possibly twice as much city-owned land to the ALR so 30 acres adjacent to Brooks Secondary School can be developed. The obvious question here is: why?
Thirty acres for the proposed project is surely far in excess to build a school. Thirty acres is 1,300,000 square feet, enough to build 24 regulation soccer fields. Given the fact that most of the 30-acre site will have exceptional ocean views once the trees are cut down, I have no doubt the land surplus to the school project will eventually end up as luxury-home building lots.
Councillor Rob Southcott has stated that “Sino Bright has demonstrated its commitment to work with Powell River and not view the region as simply a place with less expensive land.”
I would respectfully suggest that less expensive land has everything to do with Sino Bright and their local political/business supporters hanging on to this project like a dog with a bone.
If Sino Bright truly wants to work with Powell River, perhaps it can find a site that isn’t covered with trees. The derelict former Inn at Westview building comes to mind.
Sino Bright will be exempt from paying property taxes, as is the case for all schools, if this project goes ahead, in-spite of it being a for-profit private business.
Residents of Powell River will need a lot more factual information to support this project as it now stands.
Graffiti is someone expressing their opinion ["Police respond to graffiti increase," November 29]. Very much like yelling profanities to the deceased at a funeral, it's also lazy.
The graffiti creator doesn't create their own space to express their opinion, they use someone else's.
By the way, Mr. Schreurs, I wish to comment on your editorial ["Art versus vandalism," November 29], specifically Luke Ramsey's idea about "someone walks into an art-supplies shop and paints on a blank canvas with a price tag on it. Does the shop owner yell ‘vandal’ and contact the law or proclaim ‘art’ and try and sell the canvas or offer the artist an exhibition?”
No, he yells, "Thief!" The blank canvas was for sale. If the someone pays for the canvas, they can put whatever they want on it. Now the art-supplies store has a damaged product.
If the store owner wishes to make lemonade out of this lemon by selling the stolen vandalized canvas, who could blame them?
Confusing sauna situation
It was interesting to read about Powell River Recreation Complex and cost sharing by the regional district and city hall [“Governance options considered for complex,” December 6]
I wondered why it took so long for the complex to get the sauna open. Management explained the work that had to be done to me, as if that was supposed to explain why it was taking so long.
It doesn't sound like the complex is even interested in making money as they must have lost hundreds of dollars a day because the sauna was not open. Is this not one way operational costs are covered?
They've taken the higher diving board out and their explanation is that it was 40 years old and unsafe, as if metal, steel and cement ever wear out. What are they going to replace the higher diving board with? Should there not be more public consultation on this?
Maybe next year they will want to build a whole new pool. It doesn't sound like city hall and regional district are too concerned about keeping costs down.