Many uses for cop shop

Dear Editor:

It is outrageous that the City of Kelowna has listed the former RCMP building for sale. Where was the public consultation? Who authorized this?

The Kelowna Community Theatre is 52-years-old and does not adequately meet the needs of present-day Kelowna. We have a opportunity to replace the theatre with a modern facility in a location that makes perfect sense.

Peter Chmiel


Suggestion to improve safety

Dear Editor:

With all the thousands of dollars the city has put into the intersection of Cameron and Gordon avenues over the last two years with the new traffic lights and now repaving, they have still failed to make it a safe intersection for drivers attempting a left-hand turn from Cameron to Gordon.

You take your life in your own hands. They desperately need courtesy left-hand signals to make it safe for traffic to turn.

With the increase of traffic flow in Kelowna, to make all roads safer, all traffic lights in the city should have courtesy left-hand signals.

Jean Ann Houston


Appreciates Herald writers

Dear Editor:

I enjoy your paper. I am from Peachland, a little microcosm of what happens in Penticton.

I find your paper to have the gumption to print what often does not get printed. Joe Fries’ column on the Travel Penticton was good reporting/editorializing. Wow $1 million budget and they still lost Ironman.

Also, I enjoy the Brian Horejsi columns, and your other environmental coverage, a topic not too popular in other publications. I also liked the James Miller coverage of the whole marina/ waterslide fiasco, a few years back and I love it that you are in my inbox every morning

Taryn Skalbania


Mathematics seems illogical

Dear Editor:

Andrew Scheer likely means well in his vision of Canada. Too bad it went out of style 60 years ago when Dief was still the Chief, women never talked back, gender only applied to foreign language nouns and gasoline was 36.9 cents a gallon.

Since hardcore conservatism is a tough sell to most Canadian voters in the 21st century, Scheer is forced to equivocate, obfuscate and prevaricate in a desperate attempt to achieve his end. Those are tough words to apply to a potential leader of our country, but he renews his commitment to distortion and untruths almost daily.

The latest example of Scheer’s desperate need to mislead the electorate showed up in a Canadian Press story “Scheer promises to scrap cleaner fuel standard,” (Courier July 9). According to him, the Liberals plans to put a price on carbon (4 cents a litre rising to 11 cents by 2022) and to legislate better automobile fuel economy will throw Canadians to the poverty wolves.

To quote: “…(to) some families living paycheque to paycheque, an extra $100 a month matters.”

Let’s examine that supposed $100 tax increase. At 4 cents per litre, a consumer would have to consume 2,500 litres of gasoline (100÷.04) to reach the $100 figure. At an average of 10 litres per 100 kilometres, that works out to 25,000 kilometres travelled, not far off many families’ typical annual usage. At a tax of 11 cents a litre, $100 would cover just over 900 litres of fuel, enough to travel a bit less than 11,000 kilometres.

However, Mr. “Math is Hard” Scheer implies by his $100/month number that people living on the edge of poverty will somehow drive those distances not annually, but monthly. That equates to between 120,000 and 300,000 kilometres a year at an annual cost of between $15,000 and $50,000 at current prices. Gee, I think I know why they are supposedly living “paycheque to paycheque.”

I’m a 73-year-old straight white male, usually a prime target to support fiscal and social conservatives.

Fat chance!

I love my country and all its people too much to risk our future by voting for a magical-thinking leader who believes most Canadians either can’t — or won’t — do the math and that carbon doesn’t count. I guess we’ll see in October how many of us buy into that load of Conservative manure.

Graham Stevens

West Kelowna

Try term limits on city council

Dear Editor:

With all due respect to those expressing a desire to see the B.C. electorate granted a more effective means of recalling elected officials, it seems to me that term limits might prove more effective.

In Langford for example, there are members of city council whose tenure can be measured in decades, and many in the community believe that some council members have become out of touch with the community they are meant to be serving.

Elected office was never meant to be a career choice. It can certainly be argued that adopting a two- or three-term limit for elected officials in British Columbia is both well advised and long overdue.

Unfortunately, we are forced to rely on our MLAs to initiate such a policy, and they will argue that the voters have the ability to end someone’s time in office through the ballot box.

Alas, at the municipal level, people can too easily become virtually entrenched. The potential for featherbedding, indifference, arrogance and outright corruption demands that elected municipal officials’ time in office be restricted.

But don’t hold your breath.

Greg Longphee


Equal voice to all sides

Dear Editor:

Re: “Federal Liberal bias, Green, NDP locally,” by Alan Nichols (Courier letters, July 12).

The Courier clearly is without bias, printing letters to the editor from all sides of the spectrum — even the far side.

Since this gentleman is going so far as to name names in this vitriolic commentary, I don’t suppose he will object to our wondering how many worthy readers at the breakfast meeting, that it took, to contribute to these views.

A newspaper misprint isn’t new, to even the semi-educated and rarely calls for hell fire on the heads of the newspaper staff.

Opinion is usually, in fairness, not considered “garbage,” so I would not want to disparage an opinion by expressing what it smacks of.

If the “installments” offend you, you’d feel so much better if you didn’t read them.

Elaine Lawrence


In support of carbon tax

Dear Editor:

Re: “Scheer has better climate policies,” (Herald/Courier letters, July 9/10).

Choosing among policy options is never easy. But, if our policy discussions are to lead to good decisions, we must try to stick to the facts. That was the point I was trying to make in my letter of July 5, in which I concluded that Andrew Scheer’s public comments on the Liberal carbon tax are baloney.

In retrospect, I should have used the word “untruthful” instead of “baloney.” In his letter of July 9/10, Wayne Llewellyn argues that I am the one who is being dishonest, that my criticisms of Scheer amount to “malarkey.”

Scheer has repeatedly referred to the Liberal carbon tax as “a classic Liberal bait and switch, promising Canadians a plan to lower emissions and protect the environment and instead delivering nothing but a tax to punish tax payers and pad government revenues”. This is untruthful on two counts — the tax does not pad government revenues and it will lead to reduced carbon emissions.

As regards the federal budget, the tax is revenue neutral, meaning that all the revenue generated by the tax is returned directly to taxpayers in the affected provinces or to their provincial governments. That is a fact, and to me it means that Scheer’s tax grab rhetoric is untruthful.

Economists have, for a very long time, studied the relationship between the quantity demanded of a good, say gasoline or tobacco, and its price. They have discovered that except in very rare circumstances, the relationship is inverse — the higher the price, the less people demand of the good. This relationship has a name, the “law of demand,” and it is rock solid in the minds of virtually all economists. This law is to economics something like the law of gravity is to physics. And it implies that the carbon tax will lead to a reduction in carbon emissions, because it will increase the price of fossil fuels and goods that are fossil fuel intensive.

So, Scheer’s claim that the carbon tax will do nothing to lower emissions and protect the environment is also untruthful.

None of this means that the carbon tax is the only or the best way to deal with climate change. But, it hard to see how dishonest rhetoric of this sort can make a positive contribution to the discussion. I think we ought to say that it is unacceptable.

Curt Eaton