Domino effect of increasing value
Ever wonder why South Pandosy is an expensive place to live?
If a large property is zoned residential in the official community plan (OCP), considering setbacks and an OCP allowable height of four storeys, the developer might be able to fit 20 or so condos on the property.
If that same property applies for rezoning to Commercial C4 (not what the OCP calls for), which allows up to six storeys and has lesser setbacks, suddenly the property can fit 40 or more condos on it.
The developer has just reduced his land cost by 50% for each condo.
What does this do to the single-family home neighbour? The neighbour has a towering structure beside them, chaos with traffic and parking, and the quiet enjoyment of their property altered forever.
With this precedent, all properties in the neighbourhood go up in value, but this would only ever be gained if they sold and most single-family-home buyers, buy for the long term expecting the OCP will be followed.
The domino effect of increasing land values makes it less affordable to live in South Pandosy. This is exactly what has happened in the West Avenue (Mission Group) development, which is set to go to council for a variance request today.
Balanced views offered on climate
Congratulations to the editors of the Daily Courier for the balanced letters page published on Wednesday, Sept. 4.
In one column we have a letter from Tom Isherwood lamenting the failure of people to come together to fight human caused climate change. His message is that “Climate Change is Real.” He wanders into further laments about human pollution of the oceans; however, given that all but 5% of this pollution comes from a few Asian and South American nations, his fundamental message to readers in this area is to fight what he believes to be, human caused climate change.
The very next column on the page, included a wonderful letter from Elvena Stump pointing out that many scientists believe that human releases of carbon dioxide (however large) contribute a very small percentage to the growth of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The bulk of the carbon dioxide growth is coming from volcanos and deep sea thermal vents. The message of the scientists that hold this view is that “if we were to reduce human releases to pre-industrial levels, it would not produce a perceptible decrease in the current rate of climate change”
Perhaps these people are wrong; however, they deserve a decent hearing. They do not get it. They are immediately slandered as “climate change deniers.” Leftist governments will not provide them with funding to carry out their research. Brainwashed students organize demonstrations to prevent them from presenting their views at universities and, sadly, all branches of the media turn them away.
Over many years of observing this entrenched bias, I have not seen any newspaper other than the “National Post” and the “Daily Courier” that actually gives space to the dissenting view.
Climate denier’s views are ‘naive’
Re: “Still unconvinced on climate change” (Courier, letters, Sept. 6).
The argument presented in that letter is so naive, that my initial reaction was to brush it off and not invest the time to even address it. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statement about the capacity of human denial being their most underestimated data, provokes a response in me.
Deniers, with their heads in their religious metaphorical history books, seem to have no sense of time. They talk of millennia’s old events as if they had happened overnight. They did however, take thousands of years to transpire.
That’s the point!
As a scuba diver, I have personally watched the demise of coral reefs that are thousands of years old dying right before my eyes — within two decades — not hundreds.
Yes, climate change has been ongoing since the dawn of time — it’s the nature of evolution. The issue is the pace at which these changes are taking place. A thousand-year transformation of the Nile Valley is totally out of context with the rapid death of reefs, oceans and species that have taken place in only 20 years.
I express gratitude for the thousands of individuals who have become aware of the urgency to take action right now. We can certainly slow climate change down and mitigate future extreme weather events.
The irrelevance of denial will soon become apparent.
Why does media ignore story?
Re: “Personal agendas muddy science,” by Elvena Slump (Courier, letters, Sept. 4)
This letter dealing with the “hockey stick” climate change graph case in B.C. Supreme Court is incredible in that, (a) it has appeared at all, and (b) how it summarized the situation so clearly. Can you explain how mainstream media have (as far as I can make out) ignored this story and did not report it or comment on it?
Maybe you should do some follow-ups. I have quite a few stories on the questionabilty of the current predominant opinions on climate change, CO2 and the silly greenhouse effect.