|
|
 |
Letters
Dear Republic:
I was away and only just read the article entitled "Scandal at the Tyee Fellowship Funds” (issue 134) which headline was repeated on page two. In reading the article (only done with difficulty and patience), there wasn't a hint of "scandal" that I can detect. There was evidence of the writer's nose being out of joint over an alleged slight but little else. However, the editor of The Tyee, David Beers, in the last edition of your paper (Letters, issue 135), thoroughly put you and your writer in your places.
I am a regular contributor to thetyee.com and make these observations:
1. In thetyee.ca, all political shades of opinion are covered by a large stable of writers while The Republic caters only to the "left;"
2. While scarcely lavish, thetyee.ca pays its contributors, recognizing that all labourers are worthy of their hire;
3. thetyee.ca doesn't fire writers whose views clash with those of the publisher;
4. thetyee.ca, by reason of being online, prints all letters presented on subjects written;
5. In the unlikely event that a writer for thetyee.ca were to allege, as your Mr Potvin did not long ago, that the Canadian government had power over Alberta oil through the "notwithstanding clause," thetyee has an editor who would, after his laughter subsided, set the writer right.
—Rafe Mair, Lions Bay BC
Dear Republic:
Boy do I admire the clarity and guts of Kevin Potvin evaluating world events, how he doesn’t fall into the good-beside-manners approach to journalism we hear so much of these days. Potvin’s stunning idea that Canada consider encouraging nuclear proliferation is a remarkable example (“Thank goodness for nuclear proliferation,” issue 135). A few years ago, such a thing would have sounded mighty strange. But that was before thugs moved into the House on the Hill, and thugs aren’t interested in healthcare or culture, so why would we not arm ourselves? Their ideology of power, their posturing and terrorism, are just ways for them to make more dough. It’s not Dr Strangelove with an itchy finger on the red button, but Vito Corleone, and criminals, even lovable ones, understand mainly force. If we don’t equip ourselves to give them pause, we might be handing them the right to rob us blind.
—R Strandquist, Vancouver
Dear Republic:
Thanks for the great article on the petro currency issue! (“The rise of the petroeuro,” issue 135). Another piece of the puzzle. I'd heard some talk along those lines but Dan Adleman really pulled everything together very nicely.
"Vancouver's opinionated newspaper" has officially been bookmarked and I will be visiting it regularly.
—Margaret Carbone, Danbury, Connecticut
Dear Republic:
The issue with economic development is not a blind belief in "market forces," as Kevin Potvin sees it, but rather the thinking that government is expendable (“Root out those who trust the market,” issue 135).
Market forces are always there, no matter what kind of system one operates in, whether it is called capitalist, socialist or even communist. The thing is, economies do not happen in a social vacuum. The role of governments is, and has always been, to ensure the short-term sustainability of local economies when those market forces cannot. For example, though it is true real-estate developers could care less about low-cost housing, which is not lucrative for them, this attitude will prove counter productive in the long run as unsustainable neighborhoods are built where low-paying service jobs become hard to fill due to a lack of worker housing.
This has happened in Whistler where workers must commute from "cheaper" Pemberton and Squamish. The current skilled labour crisis in the construction sector is a direct result of middle-income trade worker families being unable to live in and around the Lower Mainland. In the case of the eastside, developers are eager, not to say anxious, about developing it before the inevitable real-estate bust, which could happen anytime between this year and soon after 2010, or whenever rising interest rates on mortgages make the speculative market unviable.
In the United States, which is currently experiencing this meltdown in many overpriced areas, the past has shown that the result of unplanned housing development is the creation of slums, as neighbourhoods left out of real-estate booms become refugee camps for the working poor. Right now, there are Vancouverites being forced onto the streets as their low rent downtown rooming houses and hotels are being redeveloped.
The finger should be squarely pointed at those in City Hall who are failing in their duties as elected officials, inasmuch as they aren't providing for a sustainable urban socio-economic fabric. The Europeans, and much of eastern North America, learned all this a few decades ago. But it seems out here in the boonies of the west, we're still living with that "gold rush" mentality that first put BC on the map a century ago.
—Charles Leduc, Vancouver
Dear Republic:
In reading your essay, "Root out those who trust the market,” I note you display a misunderstanding of just what "the market" is. It is not, I hasten to inform you, merely the soulless fulminations of Homo Economicus to stuff his wallet; on the contrary, subjective comparisons such as individual conscience are very much a part of it. You ask, "Does the market provide a supply of low-rent housing when there is a demand for it?" and then answer it with, "Higher demand makes the price of anything go up"—which is true enough, but fails to recognize that supplying demand actually lowers it, and prices along with it. What happens, is, new, expensive housing is provided, which increases the supply of housing in general, while the demand remains static; therefore, the cost of housing elsewhere falls, and we see an exodus from Downtown Eastside (or wherever) to some other area of town. (As an aside, how can a demand for low-rent housing make the price of that go up and still supply the housing as "low-rent"?)
I should also note that the mere existence of minimum wage laws, which you mention in passing, are themselves an example of socialistic meddling with "the market," an evidently altruistic move to keep the poor from drowning in their own poverty by increasing the price of everything manufactured by low-wage labor and thereby in the end hurting the very people it claims to help.
In conclusion I should remind you that the free market is by definition empty of any governmental input. A move which involves a vote of the City Council is by definition not "the market" at all, but socialist intervention in it. And this confusion, this use of the phrase "the market" to mean something that is not "the market" at all, is at the root of much distrust of what is, ultimately, the best method God has given us poor mortals to give all of us, including the poor, what we want out of life.
—Ross Lowe
Dear Republic:
What seems to be overlooked by you and others in the David Emerson affair is that he knows more about our present-day democracy than his “de-election” critics. He knows that there’s basically no difference between the two parties, Liberals and Tories, and he has demonstrated that fact by crossing the floor so easily. He cheated when he played the election game and pretended there was a difference. He didn’t cheat when he changed parties.
He was doing what’s natural, and teaching us a lesson. There is only one shared platform. Any government in this stage of capitalism has to prop up a system where the rich steal from the poor. Political parties are only there to create “issues” that divert the populace while the hand goes in their pockets. I wouldn’t be surprised if the boardroom types were laughing over the “Emerson controversy.” It serves them as well as any other trivial event to take people’s minds off the kleptocracy that the hidden rulers are running.
Wake up, people. Emerson is teaching you a truth about politics, while you are trying to make him fit your illusion about democracy.
—Frank Nugent, Vancouver
Dear Republic:
A few weeks back I attended the Nelson City Council meeting at the Anglican Church. I wanted to air a few of my concerns. One of the concerns I aired was the tire-burning contest during the car show. Great show by the way. However, the tire-burning contest should be reconsidered. It turns out, Nelson councilors don't answer you at the meeting or get back to you later. They likely have bigger fish to fry, I guess. Luckily for me, one of the councilors happens to work in the same building as my retail shop. A couple days ago, I asked him if the City of Nelson was going to permit air pollution during the car show. He said yes because people like the "burn-out" contest. I reminded the councilor that people liked public hangings but we stopped doing that awhile back. Is there anyone at City Hall with the courage to stop this city issuing a permit for recreational pollution?
—Tom Prior, Nelson, BC
|
|
|
|
|
