Reputation damaged?
Dear Editor:
An open letter to Wellington-Halton Hills MPP Ted Arnott.
I have contacted you on this subject before, but as you can see by the multiple letters to the editor in the Wellington Advertiser, this is an issue that is ramping up among your constituents and other Ontarians.
I see in the Aug. 23 Globe and Mail that Ryan Amato, chief of staff to Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark, has “stepped down” and will be a scapegoat for the party and Premier Doug Ford.
Will Amato get a golden parachute from the billion-dollar developer cronies given the opportunity to build on the Greenbelt?
I thought it of interest that Ford has accepted all but the most important recommendation by the auditor general. His position is that the passage of Greenbelt lands handed to developers will not be rescinded.
Take notice that the public wants this reversed and Greenbelt land put back in conserved space. The public will not stand for this corrupt handling and your party needs to ensure that this hand-over is quickly reversed or pay the penalty at the next election.
We don’t want this type of underhanded lobbying and dealing that financially appears to benefit our government representatives. Do what you need to do to preserve Conservative principles and your own reputation.
Peter Little,
Fergus
‘Shamefully dishonest’
Dear Editor:
“Our government remains steadfast in our commitment to protect the Greenbelt for future generations.”
“My commitment to protecting the Greenbelt has not changed.”
– Minister Steve Clark
“We won’t touch the Greenbelt.”
– Premier Doug Ford
These statements have been proven to be lies, and promises broken in a damaging and corrupt manner. One person has resigned. Two more, the premier and the minister, need to follow prior to the Integrity Commissioner’s report and the RCMP investigation. The reputation of the Progressive Conservative party is at stake, as it is severely tarnished presently.
The land must be returned to the Greenbelt for a myriad of reasons, including the flawed process and play-to-pay profit to flow to rich friends who were getting insider information and/or dictating to the ministry which parcels of land were to be designated for development.
This was recommendation number 15 from Bonnie Lysyk’s damning report. Please follow up quickly and save some degree of integrity to clean up this mess.
Mr. Clark used to stand in the House and demand Liberal members resign for much less! His turn now. This is a violation of the Planning Act, removing these lands without due process. It is a breach of trust as well as shamefully dishonest.
The Chiefs of Ontario statement sums up the situation well. I look forward to hearing the results of their meeting with Minister Greg Rickford.
The party needs to act rather than using talking points about housing that have no basis! Act soon please.
Donna McCaw,
Elora
‘Disappointed’
Dear Editor:
As a younger member of your readership, I have found myself both depressed and darkly amused by the back-and-forth on climate change by older readers in your letters section this summer.
Mr. Peter Mandic and many others have been vocal in their belief that Canada should do nothing to combat climate change and secure a safe future for me; and even this does not stir me to write. It’s an insultingly common refrain that deserves little response.
However, I felt compelled to write in after seeing that the weekly poll was asking “is climate change a major factor in increased damage from wildfires?” Why would you ask if science is true? Is this a tabloid? Last week’s poll was simply asking opinion on the Greenbelt report, but this week’s question invites a debate on whether or not a scientifically true fact is actually true.
I’m disappointed in this newspaper’s commitment to truth, and refusal to repeat the science: the UN states that we will “witness a global increase in the occurrence of extreme fires of up to 14% by 2030, 30% by 2050 and 50% by the end of this century.” This obviously includes the massive increase in wildfire destruction in 2023.
Why does a 25-year-old reader have to include this context instead of the seasoned reporters and editors who will soon be writing about ever-closer wildfires?
The Aug. 24 edition even includes a special column (on page 6) from Vancouver describing the destruction of Kelowna and Yellowknife, but this newspaper simultaneously publishes letters baselessly blaming “arson” for the fires.
I expected natural disasters, but I never expected this much denial by older folks, or the systemic failure to address it by the press.
Jeremy Squires,
Guelph
Myth, nonsense
Dear Editor:
RE: Fear-filled letters, Aug. 24.
Jane Vanderliet misunderstood recent letters addressing climate change. They were not trying to cause fear, but rather were encouraging one to see what is happening all around us and to take action.
We are fortunate in this area to live in a relatively benign environment, so it’s comforting to avoid acknowledging what is happening elsewhere. If you don’t know, you don’t have to do anything, right?
Vandervliet tries to mislead us about Canada’s forest fires. Hot dry conditions increase the likelihood of wildfires starting. In a normal year, lightning ignites 50% of wildfires that account for 85% of the area burned. Human carelessness accounts for the other 50%. Arson is rarely the cause. That dozens of wildfires in Canada this year were caused by arson, is false.
Vandervliet’s comment that temperature rises before CO2 is a climate myth, and that the lag is 800 years is nonsense.
It is true that CO2 is necessary for life, and so is water. Too much of either is not!
We need to stop looking the other way. Burn as little fossil fuel as possible, use less plastic, consume less, waste less, recycle and reuse. Do what you can to leave a smaller footprint and a better world.
Ron Moore,
Hillsburgh
‘Tunnel vision’
Dear Editor:
RE: Fear-filled letters, Aug. 24.
Jane Vandervliet, in her push-back against “fear-filled letters,” unfortunately left behind some basic principles of fact and of logic.
She admits that “Canada has a lot of forest fires this year,” but places the blame on arson and lightning. In fact, there are more fires than at any other time in the past – many are still burning as I type this message – and the number and intensity of the fires may result from changing rainfall patterns and changing air currents. The impact of this fiasco? “We must pay more and more taxes to stop it.”
And since she’s on the subject of taxes, what about the gigantic subsidy for electric battery manufacturers? Well, obviously, that too is a waste of her tax dollar (hard-earned, I presume). Why? Because 800 years ago the little ice age ended and the world started to warm up. And we are simply part of that recurring cycle, so “what’s to fear?”
According to Jane, nothing to fear. Brace yourself for this roll-out of logical heavyweights. CO2 is a natural element used in the intricate web of life (can there be too much of it? She doesn’t say).
“And cold weather kills more people than hot weather does.” I paused long enough to Google this assertion and found conflicting stats. In Canada about 80 people die of over-exposure to cold while over 600 were claimed as victims of excessive heat.
And those pesky “so-called experts at the UN” who claim the Earth is “boiling?” Jane’s solution is stunning in its simplicity: follow her into her garden, note the unripe tomatoes, and conclude that there is no such thing as global warming!
I am truly flummoxed at the tunnel vision displayed in this letter, not to mention its other blatant faults. As we argue in Ontario, more bodies are being recovered in Greece; the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean is so high that forecasts about the upcoming hurricane season are being revised upward; bodies are still being recovered in Hawaii; Europe recorded its warmest summer on record; our west coast is still sweltering and burning; and on and on.
I don’t expect Jane to convert suddenly to a card-carrying liberal (small or big L), but I do ask that she take the time to carry her arguments/assertions to their logical end. The conclusions may surprise her.
Richard Giles,
Mapleton
‘Fear-mongering’
Dear Editor:
With all this hype or fear-mongering about climate change or climate boiling it reminds me of the story of Henny Penny (Chicken Little).
“The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”
A carbon tax will not change our climate. High carbon taxes can ruin families and our country.
As long as China is building more coal plants (and Trudeau wouldn’t sell our natural resources to help them stop burning coal) anything we can dream of changing will have no effect on carbon footprint.
Might as well spit in the ocean and expect the water level to rise.
Eunice Bosomworth,
Ayton
‘Blowing smoke’
Dear Editor:
I have grown intensely tired of the affordable housing game of deception and the assumption that a simple solution rests in the hands of politicians.
Define affordable housing in the context of the economic realities of Ontario. The demand for housing is often blamed on the explosive immigration caused by climate change, international conflict, and humanitarian principles valued by all Canadians including me.
Immigration is only one of the factors affecting housing in Ontario, but it is frequently cited as a major contributor. So the Ford government releases land formerly designated as green space. The outcry of fraud is driven by the immense value of this land.
A conservative estimate of construction costs today suggests the cost of building a home in Ontario is somewhere around $200 per square foot and the average cost of building a home in Ontario is between $275,000 and $500,000. Add to that, the cost of the land, the enormous profits of land developers, and the profits desired by home builders. In October, the minimum wage in Ontario will rise to $16.55 per hour. That creates an annual income of less than $35,000 before taxes. That is the reality facing many new Canadians.
What will all these new Canadians, supposedly driving demand for housing, be able to afford in relation to their earning potential? Forget about buying, what about renting? According to Rentals.ca data, the average rent in Toronto is $2,818 and the rent for purpose-built rentals exceeds $3,000 a month.
The rule of thumb in Canada is that housing expenses should represent approximately 25% of after-tax household income. Two people, earning minimum wage would be required to spend over 50% of their pre-tax income on rental housing. Are they supposed to do this while having children, saving a down payment for home ownership, and dealing with inflation?
None of this makes any sense. Control inflation by keeping wages low. The costs of land, building, mortgage qualification rules, interest rates, etc. so far outstrip the earning potential to buy or even rent “affordable housing” for the people we are told are creating the demand. Politicians have no answers. The problem is multifactorial and will require a generational solution. Politicians are elected for four years at a time.
At both the federal and provincial levels of government, affordable housing is about blowing smoke, grandstanding and political posturing to win votes. It just isn’t that simple.
Walter O’Rourke,
Fergus
‘What’s the answer?’
Dear Editor:
A few months ago there was a report on the severance of lands for building homes for the future. Apparently there was outcry in the area. We need farm lands.
What about properties that are less than 100 acres and are too small to make a living farming? Or where the GRCA claim to “protect” 90% of your land so you can’t even farm on it?
We have almost 80 acres, with only 10 acres farmable and 12 acres we can’t access due to the rail line so we can’t farm.
And the other 66 acres the GRCA will not allow us to do anything with; we can’t even clean the dead and falling trees to make the land safer. We can’t clear the decaying smelly backed up swamp to create a beautiful pond for wildlife and every year GRCA claim more and more land.
What’s the answer to all those who are opposed to severances? You think three lots of one to 1.5 acres for single family homes is going to destroy the environment?
Steve Melia,
Puslinch
‘Imaginary seed’
Dear Editor:
RE: Daydreamer, Aug. 24.
My initial reaction to Kelly Waterhouse’s column last week was clapping then grinning. I would like to reassure Kelly that children can indeed “entertain themselves with something as simple as white fluffy clouds…”
Coaching 55 players aged three to five in Alma provides an excellent opportunity for laying on our backs on the grass and looking in the sky for sailboats, white and blue cows, striped tigers and fire-breathing dragons drifting across the sky.
Next they climb the mountain that looks exactly like a parachute and, finally, let it roll over them like a Lake Huron wave.
My point is that an imaginary seed is easier to plant in young kids (and Kelly). It’s equally as fun as licking the cream from an Oreo cookie.
The hope is that technology doesn’t steal it from them tomorrow.
“False hope is still hope and isn’t that enough?” (The Theory of Crows by David Alexander Robertson).
Coach Jim (de Bock),
Alma
‘Easily done’
Dear Editor:
RE: Disturbing math, Aug. 24.
I found myself laughing out loud a bit when reading Jim McClure’s letter, wherein he claims that it is impossible for Canada to build five housing units every minute of the year.
I imagined Mr. McClure standing on a new subdivision street watching five basements being dug by excavators and expecting all five houses to be completed in a minute.
I think this reader misses out on the perspective that national economies of scale can bring to “doing a little of his arithmetic,” because a simple search of Stats Canada’s housing data reveals that, during the mid 1970s, and during the late 1980s, and shortly after the turn of the last century, Canada was building approximately one housing unit every two minutes of every day of the year during each of these time periods. So, I don’t see why building five units every minute of the year would be a “Biblical fable” during the current decade; mind you, without even sacrificing Greenbelt areas!
What we are witnessing in Biblical proportions now though are repeated migrations of essentially whole population groups to new areas of the globe. Millions of people are fleeing war, famine, economic collapse and the consequential horrendous living conditions where their only choice is to migrate.
Indeed, one way to address these humanitarian disasters may be for Canada to build five housing units every minute of the year (easily done), and another way to address these crises is to change the global geopolitical culture (not so easily done). Of course, that would be the topic for another series of letters to the editor.
David Fast,
Ariss
Arthur seniors ‘discouraged’
Dear Editor:
The Arthur Senior’s Hall is in grave danger.
In a meeting at the end of August, it was relayed to a group of discouraged seniors that our place of socialization would be permanently closed by the end of the year.
The township claims that the old building is in dire need of repairs, and they want us seniors to pay for the repairs or face eviction.
Many of us live on a pension or fixed income and do not have access to the kind of money required to make these repairs, and do not want, or are not able to drive to another town for socializing.
After spending our entire lives working hard to benefit the community, it is unacceptable that this is how they repay us; many of the members of the hall have lived in Wellington County their entire lives.
The hall is vital to both the mental and physical wellbeing of Arthur seniors, hosting exercise groups and gatherings to keep us sharp and on our toes. Seniors need seniors, and we are very upset that our place of gathering could be lost forever.
If you agree, and are also concerned, please write to, or call, the township of Wellington North and help our voices be heard.
Muriel Morrison, Patti Dyce and Ruth Louttit,
Arthur
Town should be kept ‘tidy’
Dear Editor:
Since moving to Clifford two years ago I have found that asking the Town of Minto to clean up vacant properties is like pulling out teeth.
I know we are a small town and want to keep it that way, but we should still like to see our villages and towns look tidy.
Leaving tall grass and noxious weeds grow for months only encourages mosquitoes and coyotes.
With numerous complaints to the town and to the mayor, it makes one think we could do better and get some people in office that would promote our community.
Phylis Huntley,
Clifford