Dear Editor:
I would like to better understand why we are spending our tax dollars on new mailboxes while the existing ones function completely to what seems to be everyone’s satisfaction.
I’ve been led to believe that our prime minister is in support of reducing deforestation and in support of action on climate change. Would less letters, bills and advertisements be included in this program and e-billing and advertisement through electronic media be part of this equation?
Mining bauxite and producing aluminum using massive amounts of power?
If so, why do we need new mailboxes, and a cost that I would be very interested to know, while the current mailboxes seem to be operating quite fine while they sit there quietly, don’t bother anyone, and don’t require any food or drink?
However, after reading the document that was included with my new very smart looking polished keys, I now see the reasoning.
Selling points included with the keys:
– wide individual compartments (to accommodate the larger letters, magazines and advertisements using more pulp versus electronic media which they themselves encourage for any federal payments such as taxes, pensions, etc.);
– heavy-duty locks (I can’t count on one hand ever seeing a mailbox broken into, or a mailbox at someone’s house not locked ever being broken into. I heard it’s a federal offence and serious jail time is involved?);
– large parcel compartments (the majority of parcels are sent to peoples homes through Amazon);
– high-grade aluminum construction (that one almost got me, but I understand now since the old ones were falling apart?);
– outgoing mail slot (perhaps could have transferred the old to the new mailboxes and saved the 5-inch opening. You know how much aluminum production that would have saved?);
– designed for superior security and safety (I think we covered that one); and
– a sturdy base (I should have waited to the end so I could get the whole story).
Now I get it!
Brian Mackay,
Fergus