=: CORRESPON DENCE
FOR THE TERRACE STANDARD

- Dumb rules
Dear Sirs

I think the rules of the dump
are dumb. |
The various levels of govern-
ment push the three Rs —
reduce, reuse, recycle. I am.un-
der reuse...
: There are a lot Of useful and
‘good . things at the dump —
like bikes, power tools, etc, I
know alot of People who feel
the same, ©
“1 used to live in Stewart
where the dump had no salvag-
ing’ rules and was open 24.
“hours aday, 7 days a week and
‘worked very well. Everyone
benefited. =.
But ‘then I moved to the city
and there are rules that don’t
make SCIMSE, . Feople think it’s
‘oss but “one man’s junk is
another’ S treasure,”*
go to the dump mostly for
ike parts because parts are sit-
r there for free. It doesn’t

’

‘Town council should really
eriously take a look at this.

The federal ; government in its
ast budget cancelled the Crow:
ite-which has made western
ilways noncompetitive,
‘The issue has become act
ane of what kind of rail service
B.C. will have but whether it
will’ have any Service at all

<eIt must seem strange that a
New. Democratic government

tion. of the property tax burden
of the railways. It is necessary

me | I refer to the July 12 arti-
e.“It’s railway robbery”’. .
f the _tailways continue to

ceecay a or tadiredty
‘Without swift action the tax

ravince will be eroded,
0 the canceling of the Crow
Rate by the feds compels us to
ook. at what makes running a-
‘railroad in BC. noncompeti-
tive, T have not heard a word of
‘criticism from local govern-
ment leaders directed at. the
feds for this — not from the lo-’
cal government leaders, not
from the UBCM, and not from
the Member of Parliament.
‘Instead I hear the same thing
I've heard for the past four
years from: local governments
which is: “Don’tuse the feder-.
al. offloading as a reason to of-
fload on us,’”
‘Qo the other hand there is
‘endless pressure from the same
voices to spend less, balance
‘the budget, and borrow nothing
while still. building schools,:
hospitals, roads, etc,
The municipal affairs minis-
ter advised the president of the
UBCM that legislation would
be introduced which would
enable the province to deal
with the railway property as-
sessinent issue and that consul-
tations for a phase-in, of the
impacts would take place,
* The Premier promised no im-
‘pact on local tax revenue until
.1997 and a three-year phase in.
None. of this. information
seems to have reached the vari-
ous’ ouncil and regional dis-
trict members who engaged in
the debate, When the legisla-
Hon passed — because doing
nothing was not an available.
option for the province — the
UBCM president siated that
‘they (the provincial. govern-
‘ment) were trying to sneak it in
like a thief in the night” and
‘the samme phrase was repeated
by: Terrace councillor
without any understanding of
the issue. -
Could it be that the facade of
“monpartisan local government
_4s cracking under the strain of
‘| an, intminent provincial elec-
tion?

sku mci MLA,

ROSSCO VENTURES has lost
its bid to have parkland designa-
tion removed from a parcel of
land on Mountain Vista Drive.

However, company spokesman
Ross Smith says the battle isn’t
over yet.

The parcel is one of four areas
that were designated for park use
under a 1974 Land Use Contract

by-law which govems develop-
- ment in the Mountain Vista sub-

division.

Tt was originally twice its, pres-
ent size, but. in 1992 council
voted to remove the park ue
designation from 823 ‘sq.m, That
was to done to provide access to

Mountain Vista for three of the
five lots being created by sub-

division of Lloyd. and Margaret

~ Hodges’ property.

. At the time city planner Marvin
Kamenz reported “(the park), be-
cause of its location and. shape,

would be of dubious value to the

neighbourhood and, to the city,

not worth the trouble and expense

of its maintenance,’”
‘However, in response to Jobby-

ing by neighbouring property

owners, council decided by a 5-2

inaigin to leave what's left of the
parcel as parkland.

While conceding it would be
hard to develop the land as a
park, councillor Val George said
if the community wanted to keep
the designation, council should
comply with their wishes.

Councillor Rich McDaniel
agreed, saying council. should
respect the feelings of those who
had called for its retention, ‘We
Were put on council to: represent
the people of ‘Terrace,’”?

However, noting neighbouring

homeowners had been using the.

‘parcel as a storage area, council-

lor Gordon Hull asked, “How

much do people really care?!
“While not opposed ‘to small
parks, he was against having tiny
‘parcels that were unlikely ever to
be utilized as park.
And having such parcels spread
all over town would create ‘‘a

maintenance nightmare” for the

parks and recreation department.
Councillor David Hull pointed

out recréation director Steve Scott

had made it clear the other areas

‘identified as parkland in the Land -
Use Contract meant there, “Was

more than enough set aside.
Suggesting the bench was tura-
ing into ‘‘a playground for the
tich and famous’, councillor Ed
Graydon said the building of
houses shoulder-to-shoulder
along its rim was removing any

. viewpoints for anyone other than

the homeowners,

However, Smith said retention
of this parcel would not provide
the view Graydon was seeking,
That, he explained, is because the
adjacent residential property to
the east is L-shaped, hooking
around the back of and six feet
higher than the parkland.

. He noted five acres are set aside
a5 parkland under the LUC which
would give the Mountain Vista
area a higher concentration of
parks than anywhere in the city.

Smith also pointed out .tecrea-

tion director Steve Scott consider-.
ed establishing a tot lot om the.

parcel but decided its location,

right on Mountain Vista, was un-

suitable.
“T’'m not going-to quit,”’ Smith
vowed, |
Commenting later on the deci-
sion, Graydon conceded the city

‘The Terrace Standard, Wednesday, August 2, 1995 - A7

ista park battle not ove

Gordon Hull °

may ultimately come to the con-
slusion the land cannot be devel-
oped as a park. ‘Maybe we'll
revisit it Jater,’””

‘However, he said the decision

was taken out of concem for the .
"neighbours, ‘We have to listen to
‘them,’’ he added.

- On council and in favour when
the 1992. decision. was taken to

“carve off some of the: parkland,

councillor Ruth Hallock this time

: Voted for its preservation.

. the inate.

Ruth Hallock

‘7 can’t recall the details of it
(the °92 decision) at all,’’ she
said, but added she had no prob-
lem with her decision this time
“regardless how we dealt with
Hodges.”*.:

Given the. positioning of exist-
ing houses on either side: of the
parcel, she said: developing it a5:a
residential’ Jot was . not ‘com-

: patible. She also noted council

had been “heavily lobbied” on

who al us EREAC a total of

Nework T for Ae on for Miracle

\\

fat Pot Peete

Propffr?

Fetes fess

raf

PAP res

Pa

Tah tgs tt ge tg ae et

aoe awe

+. 2 ee ee ee