Letters to the Editor

Editor:rnIn the document, making every vote count, we are encouraged to support the proposed Single Transferable Vote system for B.C. elections. However, I have some serious concerns, and certain information is lacking.
The STV system opens the door to fringe groups to gain representation in the Legislature. For example, if the Marijuana Party, the Right to Life Society, or some way-out group can gain even a small percentage of the provincial vote they could get a single-purpose representative in government – hardly someone who would represent what the people of B.C. want.
According to the document, the STV system will require existing constituencies to be amalgamated into a much larger district. I tried to find out the boundaries of these amalgamated districts, only to be told that would not be decided until after the STV system is approved! When I bring together some state-ments from the doc-ument, I believe we are being asked to approve a new system without being aware of some frightening implications. Consider the following quotes from the documents:rnMLAs are expected to represent their local communities. Under BC-STV, voters will decide which of a party's candidates are elected in each district. In the north and south-east this means adopting districts of two to three members. In the south-central and south-west of the province this means new districts of between four and seven members.rnSouth-central is us; and we are not to know in advance how many constituencies will be amalgamated, nor how many members we would have. Theoretically it is possible that our district could take in the area from the US border to Salmon Arm or beyond; and it could happen that all our elected members are from the Vernon area. How such a member would best represent the Osoyoos/Oliver constituents is beyond me. And I cannot imagine how three members, all possibly from Dawson Creek, could even hope to best represent the interests of Fort Nelson and the Stikine area. Our present system may have its faults, but the problems the STV system creates far exceeds these.
Anthony (Tony) BrummetrnOsoyoos

Editor:rnTo: Friends of Desert ParkrnWe are in full support of your proposal for Desert Park as presented in the Osoyoos Times.
We strongly ap-preciate being able to watch the horse training related activities that take place at Desert Park and have really enjoyed past venues that have taken place on the grounds.
Each of the proposals listed by Friends of Desert Park make a lot of sense and it is obvious a lot of thought has gone into the vision proposed.
We concur with the main goal for Desert Park to remain the 52 acre public park and become a year round multi-use recreational facility for the general public to enjoy. We were very surprised to hear that the training centre is only made available for seven months each year.
To reiterate, we feel it is very important that Desert Park be secured as a public park for multi-use recreation for the general public.
Colin and
Catharina FrostrnOsoyoos

Editor:rnWhile watching Australian wildlife and contemplating local issues I have been doing some light reading on boundary expansion as envisioned by the Town.
Consultants have been hired to guide this process to fruition. It appears to me that several shortcuts and liberties have been taken to push this process along before the next local election.
No public restructuring committee has been formed, to my knowledge there was no tendering for this consulting contract, no open referendum appears to have been planned, rural input was only sought after the fact, and we do not know who all is to be consulted and how the program so important to all of us will be facilitated.
I seriously object to the methods and process applied and to the timing and manner in which the initiative is being advanced.
I understand, and have no objection to, the need for a serious look at our local governance structures.
The Town is simply hoping to convince some rural area residents that by incorporating our rural land base around the lake that we will all be better served.
I believe our environmental, wetlands and agricultural resources (ie our land base or natural capital) will be unilaterally absorbed into the town if their plan is followed. We are asked to believe that by this process we are to get better water quality and sewers around the lake.
I ask, why can we not get all these essential services through a multi-level agreement involving the Town, the RDOS, the First Nations community and provincial and federal levels of government?
This is being accomplished successfully by Naramata and Okanagan Falls – both rural regional jurisdictions. They are receiving millions of infrastructure dollars while we still pretend that we must join town to get similar funding.
In truth, in our area, we require a three-way service and development protocol with rural, town and First Nations. We must develop a broadly based comprehensive community plan for the entire basin – Anarchist to Richter Pass, from the 49th parallel to the head of the lake.
In terms of the Town council wish for piecemeal annexation, all town and rural property owners need to ask themselves the following:rnWho will pay?rnHow much will the services cost?rnWhat will we gain?rnWho will be negatively impacted?rnWhy is the province so anxious to facilitate municipal expansion now? Is it because municipal policing and other similar downloading ventures are coming down the road to local government?rnWhat services, once we consider cost implications, do we really need around the lake? How can we best achieve optimal results?rnWhat do the rural residents risk and give up to join the Town? Are we just playing into the hands of certain interest groups?rnWhat is in it for the Town of Osoyoos property owners?rnRural landowners will lose certain tax advantages and freedoms while town landowners will have to heavily subsidize any services promised to the annexed areas.
Rural taxation is more predictable and amounts to only 1/3 the town tax levy. Does the town need us for a potential tax base or is it for the land base they want to develop under their jurisdiction?
The province usually subsidizes this restructuring process in the short term, but over the long haul all costs will be borne by all local taxpayers. More services means more bureaucratic control. Municipalities in B.C. receive 52 per cent of their required revenue from residential taxation and this figure is rising annually.
Do you want to share in this increasing tax load?rnIn conclusion, we need to ask ourselves, who really wants and why do we need boundary expansion? I believe we need to open up the restructuring study process to look at our larger geographic area. If annexation comes to fruition now – who wins and who loses?rnEike Scheffler