BETTY GIBBENS: KEEP WHAT MAKES VICTORIA SPECIAL: We are not entirely dependent on Johnson Street Bridge: unique tourist attraction added value interest

If the City’s Vote Yes campaign fails, the Mayor [Dean Fortin] will consider increasing taxes or using limited reserve funds currently identified for other projects.

As though taxes won’t increase regardless.

We ought to pay as we go.

The intention is to lay that debt on future generations to pay – even though they obviously won’t have been given the opportunity to vote on the bridge replacement dilemma, the decision having been made for them by us.

The pedestrian pathwasy is some distance lower than the adjacent heavy traffic roadway and the drawing shows pedestrians’ faces about level with the wheels of vehicles.

Unhealthy, putrid emissions would spin out into their lungs.

We are not entirely dependent on the Johnson Street Bridge which as a unique icon and tourist attraction provides added value and interest.

There should be more heritage designations than our numerous old houses.

Keep what makes Victoria special.

Betty Gibbens

 

VICTORIA NEWS:

Heritage value indespensible

Friday, November 19, 2010

http://www.vicnews.com

A12


CCC

Advertisements

2 Responses to BETTY GIBBENS: KEEP WHAT MAKES VICTORIA SPECIAL: We are not entirely dependent on Johnson Street Bridge: unique tourist attraction added value interest

  1. Hugh Kruzel says:

    I have for some time advocated for “pay-as-you-go” because I say it work in North York and Nepean. These cities never built unless there was cash available to do so. I wise move for all!

  2. goyodelarosa says:

    Your fiscal conservative colours are shining BRIGHTLY this morning, Hugh!

    Congratulations on your noble comportment and engaged presence at the all-candidates’ meetings.

    You are one of only two Candidates for Victoria City Council in this 2010 byelection who is a serious, principled and prudent conservative, in my humble opinion and I sincerely hope that you do well in the Victoria Byelection today!

    The other Candidate I refer to is Susan Woods, also an opponent, like yourself, of so-called ‘harm reduction’ programmes, which nine other Candidates propose to expand on the benighted streets of downtown Victoria, God only knows why.

    Betty Gibbens is the grande dame of heritage preservation in Victoria.

    Betty Gibbens, unlike any other Victoria writer I know now, retains the real authority to speak to this informed concerned constituency, long after Councillor Pamel Madoff squandered her own now ruined reputation in that area, by her shockingly stupid decisions on such controversial matters as the old arena, Rogers Chocolates, building height limit relaxations, and now, most egregiously, her partisan ideological support for the philistine plans of her socialist mayor friend, to tear down the heritage Johnson Street Bridge.

    Old Betty Gibbens, on the other hand, has been a keen observer and critic of the antics of these pampered Councillors ever since I first became aware of her, and likely even before, and that was in 1988, when all three of us worked to help save Saint Anne’s Academy!

    Betty Gibbens has her own nobility which is evident in her proper English manners, and her typical English reserve.

    When she writes on these heritage preservation or park matters, she writes with the authority of a very wise old woman who has, as they saying goes, ‘seen it all.’

    Her advice to the Victoria City Council should be standard operating procedure for all their endeavours, and not just for the folly of the present instant where they would foolishly borrow $49,200,000, to be amortized over twenty years, to pay for their outrageous project.

    I note that in their propaganda for the “YES’ vote, they never mention the estimated final cost to Victoria taxpayers.

    They wouldn’t dare, eh?

    I am sure you have convinced many people to vote “NO” today, as Betty implies one should do in this well-informed letter.

    Her observation that the pedestrians on Mr. Fortin’s new proposed bridge would likely be subject to noxious car, bus and truck exhaust while walking along the attached pathway below the roadway aboove sounds like a very serious design flaw that those geniuses in that far-away English architecture office might be well advised to check out again.

    Gregory Hartnell, Editor
    GPMH-CCC BLOG

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: