Re: “Cadboro Bay gets mini-roundabout with feature for big vehicles,” July 13.
The quote in the story, that “drivers don’t have to determine who has the right of way,” was given as a point of safety.
As a regular driver in the Amy Road/West Shore Parkway circle, I assure you that drivers not knowing or caring about who has the right of way is one of the most dangerous things about it.
I invite that engineer to sit and watch our roundabout during peak traffic and see what transpires when people do not have to determine the right of way.
Lyin Despres
Victoria
My husband, son and I were nearly in a serious collision last week in the Cook/Southgate roundabout.
We had just entered the empty space from Southgate when an enormous SUV came speeding north from Cook Street Village. My son and husband both yelled, “She’s not stopping!” and I braked to a stop.
The driver sailed into the intersection and continued up Cook without so much as a glance. So a near miss for us, just another statistic, a roundabout that is badly designed and a sure accident-about-to-happen.
I have driven all over Europe, England and Ireland and am familiar with and comfortable with roundabouts. In many cases, I love them. If lost, one can stay in a roundabout to figure out the best route to a destination!
I will avoid the Cook Street one as much as possible in future.
Ann Wilmut
Oak Bay
I feel like the decision-making process regarding public use is being approached from the wrong angle and the ideas from the wrong minds.
Why not ask the people being spoken of — the “street” people, the “homeless,” the “addicts” — what their opinion is on the issue of public usage, and how to solve it?
They are not stupid, nor are they deliberately trying to make any area uncomfortable for the rest of society. (A situation caused by society itself, but I’ll write about that another time.)
They just don’t really have any other choice except to be where they are.
Addicts are people, too. Humans like everyone else. So treat them like humans. Ask their opinions on what’s going to allow them to feel like they aren’t being shoved into a corner or a box or a wet building.
Sarah Bolton
View Royal
I agree with the letter writers about inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour directed at proponents of the Quadra-McKenzie Plan by some during Saanich council meetings and the mayor was justified by controlling the chamber.
I disagree that the opposition to the Quadra-McKenzie Plan by Saanich residents in the meeting doesn’t reflect the opinion of Saanich residents.
So the Save Our Saanich petition signed by more than 5,200 people and growing doesn’t reflect opinions?
I have spoken to many of my neighbours in Saanich who have families that are appalled at what is proposed for our area and were not at the meeting. It is an unfair hinting that only retired privileged people with time on their hands can review the plan in details and take part in meetings.
I was not at the meeting but participated online. I noted that the many of those in support were not Saanich residents. Only a few said they lived in Saanich.
Unfortunately Saanich changed protocol so it doesn’t require declaration of residence when participating in public engagement. So how much weight does council place on their decisions.
Outsider influence or the residents?
Michael Riefman
Saanich
Re: “Carney’s spending will impoverish Canada,” commentary, July 12.
It’s both refreshing and concerning to pick up a newspaper today and have someone write an item and “tell it like it is!”
Gywn Morgan’s commentary in the Saturday edition describes former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s careless spending as peanuts compared to the new PM Mark Carney and his plan to cripple Canada financially.
We were led to believe that we can trust this former “banker” to manage our money wisely. Not according to Morgan, and he is right on the money!
I’ve known many bankers, most of them bank managers and they always seemed very occupied by being involved in as many public relations projects as they could find in their communities, being certain they were “seen and heard”!
That can be a good thing, but managing a successful bank is a great thing.
Morgan refers to a former prime minister of England as describing Carney’s job as head of the Bank of England as horrible!
Since he was elected, I have noticed Caney in interviews, talking in civil servant speak, the same little, slick, hollow response, very polished, so it doesn’t imply anything too certain, like being safe.
One can’t even begin to understand the math when you look at Canada’s debt today and where Carney plans to take us in the next 3.5 years. When you divide the number of Canadian taxpayers into the billions we owe, it’s senseless.
It’s so bad that Morgan suggests that the only answer is to change all of this in the next federal election — which will change nothing. The interesting thing about it all: No one could care less.
Jim Laing
Saanich
Re: “Carney’s spending will impoverish Canada,” commentary, July 12.
Gwyn Morgan’s commentary on the Liberal government’s pattern of reckless spending will hopefully wake up a few Canadians. We are deep in debt while sustaining a failing health-care system, increasing poverty and crime, raging wildfires, a housing crisis and a crumbling judicial system.
Our quality of life has deteriorated over the past few years. Neither Justin Trudeau nor Mark Carney will acknowledge this fact. Does that not tell us that our elected leaders are failing to make logical decisions? Are we not at fault for bestowing power on people who are either unable or unwilling to serve Canadians in a prudent manner?
We are gullible, according to Morgan. He is right. Today’s young people will eventually be stuck with our mess. Will they have to live in tents and dine at the soup kitchen? Sure hope not! I’m counting on them to do better than we did. Maybe, with the help of Artificial Intelligence, they’ll have a chance.
Cheera Crow
Esquimalt
Re: “Carney’s spending will impoverish Canada,” commentary, July 12.
William Safire, erstwhile political columnist and speechwriter is credited with coining the phrase “nattering nabobs of negativity” which was intended to describe individuals who engaged in incessant, trivial criticism.
Gwyn Morgan’s commentaries are so predictably negative he probably has a template set up — just fill in the blanks.
He is quick to point out the less than stellar financial record of the Justin Trudeau government but fails to mention the fact that under Stephen Harper, the balanced budgets painfully achieved under Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin turned into five consecutive years of budget deficits. Morgan selectively points out that during the spring election campaign, Harper stated that it was Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, not Mark Carney, who made all the tough decisions.
Perhaps so, as that is the role of politicians, but those decisions were undoubtedly based on sound advice from Carney. Both Harper and Flaherty gave Carney credit at that time, so it was just another instance of Harper speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Morgan also cites former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss’ statement that Mark Carney did a terrible job as Governor of the Bank of England.
Truss was prime minister for about five minutes. Actually, she holds the dubious honour of being the prime minister with the shortest term on record: 49 days, ousted due to her financial policies that wreaked havoc on the economy.
There are other much longer serving former prime ministers who have lauded Carney’s work. No quotes from them?
Pat Jackson
Victoria
Re: “Carney’s spending will impoverish Canada,” commentary, July 12.
Gwyn Morgan correctly writes that the generations that follow us will have to pay for our spending. However, those generations will be able to use the airports, roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., that our spending will purchase. Morgan ignores that aspect.
A couple of decades ago, the anti-spending folks in B.C. decided to cut costs by reducing the size of our medical schools. Was that wise? Many of us today would gladly carry some interest costs if we had access to a family doctor.
Morgan stumbles badly when quoting former U.K. prime minister Liz Truss to criticize Mark Carney. Truss was a disaster, lasting only 50 days as PM.
She, and others, did not like Carney because he was opposed to Brexit. History has proven the wisdom of Carney’s advice.
I hope to read future comments from Morgan that are up to his usual high standard.
David Stocks
Saanich
• Email:[email protected]
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5
• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information.