Tax will ultimately hurt consumers

There is a misconception that TransLink’s parking tax will generate income, when just the opposite is true. For every dollar of tax, $1.75 is taken out of the economy.

Here is what happens. The tax is levied against the merchant. Who must then recover that cost from the customer. There are several ways to do this:

•Raise the price of the goods or services.

•Cut down on expenses elsewhere. Lay of staff. Take a smaller profit.

•Close the business or move elsewhere.

If the price of the goods or services is raised, the GST and PST go up also adding more to the cost.

This puts more strain on the disposable income of the consumer, especially those who are on a fixed income. Those who can do so will demand higher wages. Those who are on a fixed income will have to forgo some of their small pleasures, and some necessities. Which in turn takes away from the economy in general.

This tax puts a stain on the people who are the backbone of our economy: the small business operator.

What will TransLink chair and Mayor Malcolm Brodie want next? A raise in pay perhaps? I shoudn’t give him ideas.

Kevin Venn’s courage is an example to us all

An open letter to Kevin Venn.

It saddens me to think that your “self-esteem and self-worth have plummeted” while you struggle toward recovery.

It is Christopher Edmunds who should be suffering from a lack of self-worth.

Your decision to do what is right on behalf of a fellow human being is both honorable and admirable. It is unfortunate that the outcome was so disastrous for you. Perhaps the life of a young woman who was raped and murdered several years ago might have been saved if her screams had not gone unheeded by the uncaring and selfish members of her community.

Judge McKinnon’s decision to do what is right is also honourable and admirable. For 18 months we are safe from the likes of a person who seems unable to make good choices and is therefore a threat to society. One hopes that down the road he will decide to become a man instead of a bully.

I am sure there are many others who join me in wishing you a full recovery, both physically and emotionally. Your courage to do what is right is an example to us all.

Oval and oval again

This is in response to the two oval letters, one submitted by Mayor Malcolm Brodie and the other from Wayne Duzita (Letters, March 9).

I feel that there is a real “defensiveness” being displayed by Mayor Brodie (and now Mr. Duzita) as they relentlesssly plead their cases to the public. If they’re so sure about what they’re doing, why are their feathers so easily ruffled?

They remind me of a young child, caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

I keep hearing about “due diligence” (must be the new catchphrase) and how it is necessary to “gather information” in order to ensure we’re “on track” with the oval. Perhaps they should’ve been “on track” and “sure” before they started this venture.

I do not disagree in having “experts” conduct research and gather pertinent information. I do feel, however, that there are certain people qualified for this who could simply “report” their findings back to mayor and council, making it unneccessary for them to “tag along”. You can justify until the cows come home, but you won’t convince me that much of what is being done couldn’t be conducted via the Internet, etc.

And I’m not convinced that Mr. Brodie, McNulty, etc. have the expertise in planning/development/construction etc. required to be present—they simply are not needed there. Anything they need to learn should be through the experts, qualified in making sound decisions in these areas. We have powerful tools in technology that eliminate the need for them to “go see” what’s happening.

Mr. Brodie states that the oval is on target “only because of the lessons learned here.” I would like to know the specific details of the lessons learned here. What exactly has he learned? It’s time for this to be common knowledge.

The “findings that have directly led to $1.9 million in cost savings” need to be disclosed. I want details, not generalizations.

And, to Mr. Duzita: While the expense ratio of $575,495 on the $178 million is 0.33 per cent, this is a lot of money to me. Don’t rationalize and minimize it, like it’s a drop in the bucket—who do you think is footing the bill here?

Our property and water taxes are increasing. Rent and purchasing houses here is out of control. You’ve tried to “razzle dazzle” us into thinking this is just “menial” stuff, no biggie, common practice. What’s common sense to me is that you shouldn’t spend money you don’t have. You shouldn’t live beyond your means, even when enticed by big, flashy new toys. That, in the end, someone has to pay for them.

What happened?

It seems that a couple of years ago Markus Naslund was considered one of the best players in the world.

He was the Canucks’ top scorer. He had one of the most accurate wrist shots in the NHL. He played on one of the most entertaining, up tempo teams in the league.

It was expected that with the changes in the rules, etc. that the Vancouver Canucks would be one of the top teams in the NHL.

But is seems that ever since he received the cheap shot from Steve Moore, that put him out for a few games, everything has changed.

How does one explain one of the best lines in the league, Bertuzzi, Morrison, Naslund, is not even the best line on the Canucks? There are probably 25 lines, at least, in the league playing better.

Who can explain this remarkable decline? This once high-powered team is losing to teams who have at best half the talent.