Summerland growth not good for ALR
Thank you Summerland mayor and council for your response to my letter.
So you say there would be no net loss of Agricultural Land Reserve lands. Except for the little detail the land proposed for the swap is of a lower rating and less valuable ALR land. Not a helpful deal for the ALR.
Those wonderful planners’ dream circles look and sound good, as they did 20 years ago, but they do not work everywhere, as in Summerland.
The thriving grape and wine industry has become as large and viable as it is because the land there was protected and could be used as needed.
Without ALR protection there would have been wholesale divisions or orchards, creating a fragmented land base.
Who knows what exciting enterprise is going to appear in the next few years. But we could have the land for the new agricultural pursuit.
So keep cool. Wait until there is need and other alternatives considered. Then approach this idea again.
Sheila White
Summerland
*****
National park for new year
Every year is hopefully going to be better than the previous, or so we wish. I have come to the conclusion, long ago, the new year will be whatever we make it to be.
Many societal issues carry over from the past years, many new ones arise. The critical issue I’m ready to pursue is the maturation of the national park for the Okanagan Valley.
How better to start off 2014?
For the past 10 years or so, much has been said and done in preparation for it. Were money, time, effort and materials expended only to be senselessly disposed of? Never! That would be careless government wastage of tax payers’ dollars.
We are close to a negotiated settlement.
We just need a few more parties at the negotiating table to iron out concerns to accommodate all groups within the proposed park boundaries.
The more we learn about this national park issue, the more it becomes a win-win enterprise in this Okanagan Valley, for many years to come. We must be thinking and planning for the future.
The park will be the greatest economic boost and benefit to Oliver and area that we’ll ever see. Let’s not scuttle a golden opportunity forever. Our local economy desperately needs this incentive to survive.
It definitively appears there will be numerous positive environmental, economic and employment benefits from this park.
I see few, if any, serious negative factors involved.
Also, government investment for infrastructure, would be very minimal, but would generate financial returns.
Nobody can deny that.
I request that MLA Linda Larson, Premier Christy Clark and all Liberal MLAs reconsider their present stance and allow genuine democracy of the people, by the people and for the people to decide if they want this park.
Put all the facts and figures on the table for the people to study in order to make a choice.
If necessary, grant the people in all concerned constituencies the opportunity to vote on this national park issue and decide the matter once and for all.
James Demetrick
Oliver
*****
Dyer overlooks Iran deal
Gwynne Dyer appears to assume Iran will honour agreements to delay enriching uranium to bomb-making concentration, in your Nov. 28, 2013, issue.
Does he think inspections can be thorough?
While U.S. satellites can see the bomb-resistant layered complexes under construction, can they see tunnelling with modern machines?
Yes, the excavated material has to be put somewhere, likely dispersed, including used for buildings. I think it can be done. All it takes is one undetected facility to produce enough bomb material for Iran to annihilate Israel.
By claiming Iran has made little progress in 20 years, Dwyer ignores its setbacks such as the Stuxnet computer virus and the variability of progress.
That’s like estimating how quickly the violent drunk with a big knife is going to get close enough to cause serious harm — you don’t know how mobile he is, whether he will trip over a crack in the sidewalk, or whether he will have to stop to duck into shadows as a police car makes a scheduled drive by.
Dyer overlooks that the latest deal leaves Iran with advanced enrichment capability at a “research” facility, thus at least in a good position to quickly increase production of bomb-grade material.
Dyer expects Israel to assume slow progress instead of erring on the side of caution in the face of disaster. Iran’s intent has been clearly stated.
While it is again succumbing to international pressure, it’s only temporary. Why doesn’t Dyer take Iran at its word?
Keith Sketchley
Saanich