LETERS, LETTERS, LETTERS

Gimli council isn’t listening

Posted 6 months ago

Gimli council isn’t listening

I would like to share my views and feelings of our current town council. As a taxpayer and business owner in this community I don’t feel they are fairly representing or listening to the people of this community.

When I heard rumor that a RONA store was interested in opening up in Gimli, I attempted to contact Joann King by phone twice. I wasn’t given the opportunity to speak to the Town Administrator; my calls were returned by her secretary. Her secretary asked me what my call was regarding and I told her. I then anticipated getting a call back from Joann King. Instead her secretary called me back with a response of: there is nothing you can do — and speaking to Joann directly was not an option.

I then contacted my member on council — Glen Brooks, who heard my concerns. I was again told that there was nothing I could do, as long as they had their i’s dotted and their t’s crossed they would be in.

I was also told by councillor McKenzie, that free enterprise and competition are a good thing. I don’t agree that the Cronshaws Pub is a fair example of competition for your business. They have a liquor licence and are a pub — you sell coffee. If a Tim Horton’s were to enter our marketplace, I believe then you would have direct competition.

My final attempt was to contact Bill Barlow. Home Hardware provides us with information regarding statistical data of this area. I felt this information was important, and that our elected council might find the information useful. I left two messages on his personalized voicemail, and he denies receiving my calls.

So needless to say, as a 25-year member of this community and business owner who pays a hefty amount of taxes annually, I feel as though I am being ignored and that my concerns have fallen on deaf ears.

I then learned that the meeting of July 2/09 was regarding the rezoning of residential to commercial property for the proposed RONA store. Through another business owner in town, I also heard that this portion of the meeting was open to the public. I attended and did voice some concerns at this point, but was limited to discuss issues only around the rezoning of the residential properties.

I believe council was uncomfortable making a decision at this point, and tabled it to the meeting of July 15/09. Earlier on this day, I checked the agenda for the Town Hall meeting, and it was tabled for 6:00 p.m. under the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. I arrived at the meeting at 5:52 p.m. and was asked by council why I was there. I stated my case and I was informed if I had questions they could be asked at the end of the meeting. However, the decision on rezoning had been “moved up” to an early time and had already been approved.

As I learned at the last meeting there is no “town planning” involved in any decisions. So as I see it, as long as you can read the zoning bylaws, you may be a suitable candidate for the next election. Common sense, business experience or knowledge don’t appear to radiate amongst our elected officials. I am all for progression, but at what price, I ask??

With no town planning, I don’t know how we as a town have managed to this point. I was told at the last meeting that if four stores of the same chain applied to council, it would be approved providing they had commercial property and were complying with the zoning bylaws. Now I truly don’t see this as progression. I feel progression takes planning and should include a needs assessment of our community.

At the last two council meetings I have attended, our elected officials stare blankly at their computer screens to seemingly avoid eye contact with the public. They seem to mimic each other in response to questions — no one seemingly having their own opinion or scared to voice it.

I guess I have misunderstood politics for a long time. I thought the persons whom I voted for would be there to represent my best interests. Oh, I guess that ended with the campaign.

Sincerely,

Sharon Thordarson

Frontage levy ‘emphatically rejected’

This communication is with regard to the July 10th letter to the editor authored by Matlock resident Doug Newberry and entitled “Time to move to user pay in Village”.

I fail to understand why Mr. Newberry jumps to the conclusion that I, (Mr. Derenchuk) agree(s) “that a frontage levy is also needed” to help pay for a sewer system in Dunnottar. Quite the contrary!

I emphatically reject the concept of a frontage levy taking the place of a “percentage of our property value”, especially in a largely seasonal cottage setting, when it comes to paying for a sewer system for Dunnottar.

Mr. Newberry’s comment that “a combination of usage fees and a frontage levy may be a viable option” while at the same time cancelling out property assessment clearly fits the category of TAX?SHIFTING to the extreme.

For my part, I hold a continuing and abiding faith in a progressive taxation system based on a percentage of property value.

A FLAT?TAX, disguised in the form of a FRONTAGE?LEVY, is certainly no example of a fair and progressive tax sharing system for Dunnottar and should be erjected if we are to believe in fair play!

George Derenchuk

Seasonal Cottager

Matlock

Cruisin’ coverage, participants get the nod from organizer

Re: Cruisin’ Gimli Beach Car Show

I would like to thank Roger Newman for the excellent article about the show, and also thank all the participants and spectators for making it the success it was.

The details Roger provided and the interviews with Car Show participants were both informative and entertaining. Having said that, I am a numbers guy and there apparently was some confusion around the financial issues that I would like to clarify for all concerned.

Where the article says “the show raises $5,000”, it is pretty much a break-even event. The $5,000 mentioned is actually a minimum commitment the Gimli Car Club has made to the Gimli Skateboard, BMX and Inline Skatepark Committee to assist their fundraising activities. Part of that commitment was met earlier this year with funds from Operation Red Nose, Gimli; an additional contribution will be paid shortly from a raffle and Registration Fees paid by Car Show participants, the balance to be paid in early 2010 via Operation Red Nose. Operation Red Nose is an independent program the Gimli Car Club hosts in our area each December; proceeds raised must be donated to Youth Sports activities and a number of them are supported by the program each year in this area.

The “Cruisin’ Gimli Beach” participants each pay a $5 Registration Fee. Each year there is a designated program/charity for those funds; the past several years it was earmarked for the Gimli Volunteer Fire Department and their Jaws for Life Fund, in excess of $6,000. Currently, the Gimli Skateboard, BMX and Inline Skatepark Committee has been designated.

Thank you,

Jim Sexton

Treasurer,

Gimli Car Club

Opening street to pedestrians a positive step

Last week Paul Lacroix’s letter complained about the widening of the sidewalk on the Winnipeg Beach strip. He bemoaned the loss of parking and the cost of the curbs.

After strolling the strip this weekend I have to weigh in by saying that I think that Mr. Lacroix is being a grump.

Widening the sidewalk was a great idea. The expansion of the strip’s merchants out onto the street has the feel of a permanent street festival — almost a sense of Corydon Street. As well, I think it makes the strip safer — the added visibility to traffic is a positive, particularly when there are throngs of small children back and forth across the road.

As to the cost, this is a good investment of our tax dollars. If the local merchants feel that this innovation will help them energize the strip and bring more recreation-seekers to the community, then I calculate that the added economic activity and commensurate tax revenue will more than offset the cost of the curbs.

People visit our family at the Beach from Ontario to B.C. and they comment constantly that Winnipeg Beach is a real gem. It’s a unique place, where visitors can take in the beauty of the lake while enjoying a cappucino at Breakwaters, spaghetti at Valentino’s or the games at Playland. If the hard working merchants downtown need this innovation to help them market the Winnipeg Beach Experience, I’m all for it. Congrats to the merchants, Mayor and Council for their creativity

Mark Goodwin,

Winnipeg Beach

Harper takes ‘feudal approach’

What does the shutdown of Chalk River’s medical isotope program have in common with the 17th century battle between feudalism and democracy? Tragically, far too much.

Modern democratic economies work on the principle that raw resources, consumed by either companies or individuals, are public assets used by all (such as water, air, land, public infrastructure etc.). Normally, you are required to pay the public back for what you consume; and then the profit you create by adding value is yours. Modern democracies assure that there is a public benefit from the use of common resources. That’s our democratic-economic system.

In the seventeen century, kings and feudal lords claimed ownership of both resources and government for their own control and benefit. Then, humanity debated whether private enterprise belonged under feudal-individual management or democratic-public administration.

In the case of Chalk River’s public medical program, the Harper government has cancelled it in order to make room for private control — distancing a Canadian medical program from democratic administration.

At issue, should Chalk River’s medical program be treated as a strictly private resource under the control of its individual owners; or is it fundamentally a public resource run for common public benefit?

No matter the answer, Mr. Harper is clear that he believes that the feudal approach of strictly private control justifies his decision to cancel the Chalk River program — the public interest be damned.

Eugene Parks,

Victoria, B.C.