Taxing question
Legislation for Sunshine Coast Tourism (SCT) 2015 MRDT application requires that documented evidence be provided showing that there has been consultation with the local accommodation industry and the majority of providers affected by the levy support its business plan and application [“Levy supports area promotion,” August 5].
Currently SCT is requesting letters from all local governments, but there is a problem.
SCT’s business plan includes its budget and must first exist before any letters of support are obtained. But what happened was, SCT received letters of support for the MRDT before the final version of its business plan and budget were released. SCT has said that its business plan and budget were finalized recently, just prior to making presentations to local governments, but given that SCT received 11 or 12 letters of support from accommodation providers prior to March 2, 2015 and before any ‘shovel ready’ business plan or budget were made available and all prior to the final version of the plan presented to councils, SCT is in gross violation of the legislation from which they hope to benefit.
SCT president Celia Robben has said the real issue that the initiative’s detractors never want to talk about is how every other tourism region in the province already uses MRDT to market their communities to tourists. But what SCT never wants to talk about is its failure to meet legislation, its demand that it and not the affected accommodation providers control the levy’s annual revenue.
SCT has offered to establish an eight-person advisory committee comprised of “MRDT providers,” but it would not have any power and only be able to make recommendations to the 11-member SCT board comprised of a majority of non-MRTD provider directors. Also, this is an organization that does not even allow its members to democratically elect a president. Where is the accountability and transparency in all of this?
Colin MacLean, Vice President Sunshine Coast Accommodation Association, Roberts Creek, BC
Thank-you for not smoking
During the city’s council meeting on July 14 the issue of cigarette butt litter and the need for “no smoking” signs was discussed [“Smoking Regulations Need Signage,” July 29]. Powell River Smoking Regulation Bylaw 2232 has been in effect since October, 2009, and smoking is not permitted in parks or playgrounds. There is, however, no signage to notify the public.
Mac Fraser said the real issue is fire hazard, and it is significant—especially this year which has been particularly hot and dry. But, fire hazard is not the only issue when it comes to public smoking. Second-hand smoke exposure, which kills 800 Canadians annually, also requires adequate attention.
At the same council meeting Mayor Dave Formosa commented that he would not want to infringe upon the rights of those wanting to smoke a cigarette while they watched the sun set at the beach. I would argue those who want to do this do not have the right to jeopardize the health and wellness of non-smokers. And by the way, cigarette butts are the number one cause of litter on beaches worldwide. Butts which contain toxic chemicals and known carcinogens that then get into the ocean and contaminate the water and sea life.
Many communities have taken steps to protect residents from second-hand smoke exposure. Enhanced smoking bylaws ban smoking in parks, beaches, playgrounds, and playing fields in the cities of Vancouver, North Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Whistler, Pemberton, and Squamish.
British Columbia currently has the lowest rate of cigarette smokers throughout Canada. It is not my intention to judge those who decide to smoke, many of my good friends and family members do. However, it is important to advocate for and protect those who decide not to, especially our children who should have the right to play in a clean environment with fresh air, free of toxins.
Tricia Hansen, Nootka Street
