Re: “Victoria needs a plan that will truly make city safer,” comment, June 25.
Victoria Coun. Marg Gardiner’s commentary should be a “must read” for all Victorians and an exam test for her fellow members of Victoria council.
Our problems in Victoria are especially severe because of decisions made by this council and previous councils over the past decade.
Accept only supportive housing (housing for people under care) that leads to rehabilitation and a pathway to a better life. Demand that B.C. Housing phase out any supportive housing in Victoria that allows illicit drugs, alcohol or weapons.
Demand that Island Health cease operating a consumption site in the city.
Exempt supportive housing from the Residential Tenancy Act to permit managers of supportive housing to remove tenants who disrupt the lives of other tenants or traffic in drugs.
Enhance police and city bylaw presence on our streets.
Stop promoting Victoria as a centre for free drugs and a supportive environment for self-harm and anti-social behaviour.
It has been far too many years since we have had such a clear voice on Victoria council. Way to go, Coun. Marg Gardiner.
Jason Austin
Victoria
Re: “B.C. NDP caucus asks RCMP to investigate Rustad’s claim of MLA blackmailers,” June 19.
It is not at all surprising to see the NDP caucus chair publicly ask the RCMP to investigate an allegation of blackmail of some third party and purely for a political purpose.
That said, it is extremely disappointing to hear the RCMP confirm for media that “the allegations [of the NDP caucus chair] are under review and assessment.” One of the foundational principles of modern policing in a democratic society is that law enforcement agencies remain free from political influence or interference, particularly in investigations and operational decisions.
And since when does the RCMP make public what it is or is not investigating, let alone reviewing and assessing? Victims of crime make complaints to the police. Police investigate those complaints and if charges are recommended by police, Crown counsel applies appropriate charge approval criteria.
When the police let themselves be used as a political instrument, we are on the road that leads to a police state. It is a dangerous road indeed.
Roxanne P. Helme, K.C.
Victoria
The recent alternative approval process launched by the District of Saanich for the Saanich Operations Centre Redevelopment Project deserves far more scrutiny than it has received. Many residents were surprised to learn — often too late — that a $150-million initiative was being pushed through via a process that required citizens to “opt out” within a narrow 30-day window.
The public has every right to expect a transparent, accessible and widely publicized process. Instead, many of us were left questioning whether the bare minimum legal requirements were simply followed — without regard for genuine public engagement.
That’s why I’m calling on Mayor Dean Murdock and council to appoint an independent third-party scrutineer to review how this AAP was conducted. An impartial review would confirm whether public notification and participation were handled fairly, and whether the counting and validation of elector response forms met appropriate standards.
While this might possibly add a small cost to the process, the responsibility lies squarely with Saanich for choosing this route in the first place.
Residents deserve confidence that public approval processes are conducted with integrity — not just efficiency. This is not about opposing the initiative itself, but about protecting democratic accountability in our local government.
Dan Horth
Cordova Bay
Wednesday was the final day that Saanich residents could submit a ballot in opposition to the alternative approval process by which council plans to borrow $150 million.
A group of Saanich residents who call themselves Save Our Saanich has collected about 7,000 signed ballots — elector response forms as they are officially called — in an effort to come up with the 10 per cent or about 8,735 forms required to kill the plan.
The really, really important question is: How many of these elector response forms have been returned directly to Saanich and when added to the 7,000 SOS ballots, will they be enough to force a referendum?
Saanich residents need to know who is counting them and when the numbers will be announced. Further, can we trust the results?
Surely, a third party audit is called for.
Dave Secco
Saanich
Re: “Researchers discover ancient predatory, fanged fish that swam in Nova Scotia waters,” June 21.
The well-illustrated story describes a fearsome fish that used to live in Nova Scotia. The story makes several references to evolution — especially how the fish’s teeth might have created “an evolutionary advantage for the species.” The story mentions that the advantage “became a feature” of future species.
Ironically, page A1 includes a story that mentions significant efforts that are being made to protect habitat that is used by the northern spotted owl. This sub-species is described as “endangered.”
The evidence indicates that the spotted owl is evolving into a nearly identical bird — the barred owl.
Compared to the spotted owl, the barred owl has a significant evolutionary advantage: it needs much less space to feed and breed.
Does our Species at Risk Act not make allowance for evolutionary processes? Are Canadians required to reject evolutionary science? Must we waste time, effort and funds to fight evolution?
David Stocks
Saanich
The federal government is planning to spend unprecedented amounts of money on the Canadian military. It’s about time. They need it. I’m in favour of the spending.
On the other hand, I haven’t had a family doctor in 20 years and while recently in the emergency room waiting nine hours to see a doctor, I had time to observe just how understaffed and overworked medical professionals are. If only it were as easy for the government to find magical amounts of money for health care as it is for defence.
C. Scott Stofer
Nanaimo
• 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; it will not be published. Avoid sending your letter as an email attachment.