Strata property act changes will not work
I have just received notice our strata council is holding a special general meeting to vote on a proposed change to have our building designated “55+.”
If approved, this would exempt our building from being forced to permit rentals under the proposed Strata Property Act changes. I suspect stratas throughout B.C. are planning similar meetings with the same objective.
It saddens me that we must vote on this age restriction just to maintain the “no rentals” bylaw our owners overwhelmingly approved as part of a recent bylaw review.
Our current community is multi-generational consisting of singles and couples. Of course, current residents under 55 will be permitted to stay should this change to our bylaws pass.
But it means that in the future only those 55 and over can purchase units in our building. Aside from changing our demographic, it also puts units such as ours — often in an older building and less expensive than newer structures — out of reach of younger singles and couples wanting to enter the housing market.
If the premier wants to make housing more accessible to more people, his proposed strata property act changes will likely have the opposite effect as more and more stratas revert to “55+” designations as their only recourse to maintain the bylaws that their owners have voted for.
Patty Pitts
Victoria
Problem with the new law? Get involved
Many letter-writers do not like the changes to the Strata Property Act, revising the rentals restrictions that had previously been left up to strata corporations to decide.
Some of these writers should enter politics and try to make direct changes and revisions regarding how our region can create more housing.
There is no way we can restrict people from moving here, as we did, but perhaps pushing for better public transportation as exists in Europe — light rail transport from the West Shore and above the Malahat, which was probably dismantled unwisely to provide “trails”…. etc. — would aid in developing suburbs on the West Shore and up-Island on the eastern side.
Will take a while, but there are solutions. Just get busy doing it.
Janet Doyle
Victoria
Great value to be had in school liaison programs
I read with disappointment the comments of the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner to the School Trustees Association opposing the continuation of the school liaison officer program offered by many police jurisdictions in the province.
I wonder if sensationalist media have led to this continuation of woke, anti-police and cancellation-related agendas within the province and Canada in general.
What is lost is that police have a generally positive image in B.C., and most joined to help the people they serve. Perhaps the B.C Human Rights Commission needs to be re-educated.
I retired from policing many years ago, and during my service I spent years as a school liaison/community services officer. All involved with the position saw it as important and useful in a variety of ways.
Young children received useful safety information, via lectures, video presentations and visits from a “safety bear” (often with an officer inside). Other children received bicycle safety lectures and competitions that honed their safety skills.
High school students learned about traffic and drug laws, from those that enforce them. But the most useful thing that all these children learned was that police officers were real, normal and approachable, and if they had a problem, they often learned to trust the school liaison officer for information or a useful referral.
Those critical of the program indicate that it is negative, and some people might feel intimidated by police officers in schools. First Nations, Black and disenfranchised youth and parents can often have a positive experience with a school’s officer in a non-threatening environment.
In many years as a school liaison officer, I did not have one negative comment from parents, educators or students regarding the school liaison program.
Many years after retirement, I continue to run into students and parents who speak fondly of the program. It is my hope that municipal governments continue to see the value of such programs.
R.W. Jones
Sidney
Cowichan Valley needs tree protection
Re: “Duncan company fined $50,000 for cutting 100 trees in Nanaimo without permit,” Nov. 30.
If Duncan firm Top Down Investments was fined $50,000 for logging without a Nanaimo city permit, just imagine what’s gone for generations in the Cowichan Valley. Here, no tree-protection bylaw exists outside the tiny City of Duncan.
Owners can cut anywhere, anytime, any species, without penalty. Foolishly, Cowichan basically has an honour system regarding our precious trees and ecosystems.
A non-existent tree bylaw is merely mentioned as a good idea in North Cowichan’s new official community plan and environmental bylaws, despite citizens demanding tree-protection legislation with sharp teeth — such as Nanaimo’s.
We sincerely hope our fresh council will yank us out of such frontier thinking, and prevent the awful disregard for nature reported shown by Top Down and other firms.
Peter W. Rusland
Duncan
Province needs to act to bring amalgamation
Re: “Amalgamation must start at the grassroots level,” letter, Nov. 28.
This letter creates confusion with its contradictions. The author writes: “Peter Diamant’s article is good in theory, but what is missing is that the provincial government would first need to amend the Community Charter… .”
The writer also says: “Leadership for change in municipal governance rests with the voters.”
Given the Greater Victoria community voted more than 70 per cent in favour, twice, even in the face of some cynical, awkward wording … the grassroots part is well-established.
So, yes, the province needs to legislate, and it is the province that leaves us twisting in the wind. Seems to suit them fine.
Let’s hope for leadership (meaning courage for long-overdue change).
Stephen Ison
Victoria
Encampments hurting Victoria’s reputation
Re: “Victoria businesses mulling moving after random violence downtown,” Nov. 25.
I was on a river cruise in Spain and Portugal in October, and more than half of the other passengers were from the U.K.
Those passengers I spoke with who had visited Vancouver and Victoria recently, when they found out I am from Vancouver Island, without exception, all mentioned the fact that they were disgusted to see the number of homeless people congregating around the areas where tourists are.
Many of them had visited here before and were appalled at the situation the way it is now compared with their prior visits.
Their comments about the filth and disorder created by these encampments and why it has been allowed to occur left me unable to respond.
The reputation of Vancouver and Victoria as tourist destinations will be in tatters unless something is done to remediate this untenable situation.
Yvonne Andre
Campbell River
Why not restrict or ban tobacco?
Re: “Still too much we don’t know about cannabis,” editorial, Nov. 25.
A recent letter cites all the negatives of marijuana smoking and the need to perhaps amend the Cannabis Act, outlawing the sale of marijuana cigarettes. Yet it was not suggested to outlaw tobacco cigarettes. The last time I checked, tobacco was just as toxic to the lungs and far more addictive.
Francy Pesek
Central Saanich
SEND US YOUR LETTERS
• Email letters to: letters@timescolonist.com
• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5
• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not be published. Avoid sending your letter as an email attachment.
