Feb 5 - Salt Spring Island Archives

Page 4 GULF ISLANDS DRIFTWOOD Wednesday, February 5, 1986
fault Mante IBrifttooob
Published every Wednesday at Ganges by
Driftwood Publishing Ltd.
Box 250,
Ganges, B.C.
VOS 1E0
Ph. (604) 537-9933
MEMBER:
Canadian Community Newspapers
Association. B.C. and Yukon
Community Newspapers Association.
Western Regional Newspapers
SECOND CLASS MAIL REGISTRATION NO 0803
The past and present debates over use of St.
Mary Lake all revolve around one theme—the
perceived need to protect both the water quality of
the lake and its role as a source of domestic
supplies.
While that is a noble and worthwhile pursuit, the
price which must be paid for protecting water
quality is getting higher and higher at every turn.
And the latest invoice could be the costliest yet
seen.
The current flag is over proposed lakeside
improvements which would benefit public access.
The plan is being resisted out of concern that
greater use of the lake carries with it a danger that
water quality will be further eroded.
Since both options claim to be a defence of the
greater public interest, the question we must
answer is one of degrees of good and bad. Looked
at that way, improving public lake access deserves
the greater support.
It has been argued that increasing public access
is but a stepping stone to greater use—a spiral, if
you will, that could claim water quality if it spins
too high.
DANCING ON DECK
FORBIDDEN
RULES. RULES J TELL YbU
THE UORLD IS NO LONGER
FIT FOR J*)AN NOR BEAST.
WM//M//M,//„M/»«,«r„„„.fi,t
r
\HQ JUWPINSl ^^ S3IC7
, «w^»-'
President
Publisher
Editor
Photography
Reporter
Front Office
& Circulation
Accounting
Production
Frank G. Richards
Tony Richards
Duncan MacDonnell
Alice Richards
Sharon White
Catherine McFadyen
Jill Byron
Gwen Albhouse
Nicola Byron
Barbara Richards
Anne Lyon
Gloria O Tiara
Lake plan needs
equal application
It's a somewhat nebulous argument, as far as
public swimmers are concerned. They do not
arrive on the beach with brick and board to use for
house construction between dips. They are there
for a few short months of the year, and their
numbers are not large.
Besides, the proper way to control long-term use
is through zoning of adjacent land to ensure
overbuilding does not occur. Limits placed on
swimmers is a back-door approach which
penalizes growing demand but not its cause.
The other point to consider is the questionable
tactic of seeking to control public access to a
lake while proposing no action against shoreline
residents who also splash in its waters. Or is the
intent to board up the lakeside and turn it into a
j NO conmiES
\_
SMOKING BANNED
\ (
RCY.C N.A.
1984 Prize Winner, CCNA
Best All-Round Newspaper
(3,500-4.999 circulation)
1985 Prize Winner, BCYCNA
Best All-Round Newspaper
(Circulation 4,001 and over)
private playground for the fortunate few who
bought early?
We can't afford that on this island. Public access
to lakes and foreshore is difficult enough to find as
it is. The last thing we should tolerate is the
slamming of one more door in the public's face.
But back to St. Mary Lake. If water quality is
truly the issue, and swimmers are part of the
problem, don't allow anyone in the lake. While
you're at it, rip up the road to make sure no
automobile fumes waft over the waves. Stop
airplanes from flying overhead. Order all the
houses torn down.
Preposterous? It's headed that way
philosophically, if not literally. We started with
outboard motors, now we're up to quotas on
public swimmers. What's next?
The point is you can't turn St. Mary Lake into a
true, single use body of water unless you're
prepared to kick everything and everyone else out.
And that means the public should not stand for
access restrictions if they cannot be applied across
the board.
Wage law begs revision
An increase in the minimum wage paid in B.C. is in order.
Currently, the legislated low sits at $3.65 an hour for
persons over the age of 18 years, and at $3 an hour for those
younger than 18.
It's not enough. Calculations made by the National
Council on welfare and low-income cutoffs peg the national
poverty line at $843 a month for a single individual, which it
says represents a wage of $5.62 an hour.
Working for the $3.65 minimum paid in B.C. gives the
individual $549 a month—which is about 60 percent of the
poverty benchmark.
Victoria, which recently studied the possibility of raising
this province's minimum wage but decided to maintain the
status quo, should take another look at the question.
Our provincial government cannot justify keeping its
minimum wage level so far below the national standard for
poverty. Payment levels set just past the half-way point of the
bare minimum needed to survive provide no incentive to jobseekers,
keep people in dire straits and create the need for
expensive safety nets to make up for the shortfalls.
It is perhaps too much to expect Victoria to raise the
minimum wage level to reach the poverty line, but it should at
least take a substantial step in that direction.
The 'unknown soldier' and why he appeared...
For those who have requested
it, this week's space will be
devoted to an explanation of how
letters can appear in print without
an author's name attached.
First, it must be understood
that while the concept appears to
be alien to many Salt Spring
residents — at least to most of
those who. discussed this matter
with me — it is by no means
unusual.
In fact, withholding names has
been an accepted and commonenough
practice at most community
newspapers in this province
during the 10 years I've spent in
the newspaper field.
Why? The premise behind
withholding names, on request, is
that it encourages airing of views
by those people who would otherwise
stifle their opinions for fear
of being attacked.
There is a trade-off involved, of
course. What is gained in diversity
of opinion comes at the
expense of individual accountability.
Editors who choose to withhold
names in certain situations
do so in the belief that the end —
an exchange of opinion — justifies
the means.
I endorse that position because
I have seen enough cases of the
public interest being served by
just such a policy.
One quick example: Questionable
practices by an Indian band
were once exposed via a letter to
me from an inside employee who
stood to lose her job if identified.
Since no one else was willing to
speak to the issue, and because
the effect of those practices was
pure conjecture, opinion was the
only way to bring them to light.
The result of the name 'withheld
my
word
Duncan
by
MacDonnell
letter was a tightening of procedures
which served the public's
interest.
Last week's letter does not
expose anything like internal
corruption, just a line of thinking
different from the majority view.
But is that reason enough for it to
be suppressed?
I don't believe so. A policy of
extending anonymity, when requested
and sought with good
cause, cannot be applied on a
simple pick and choose basis with
scale of revelation as the yardstick.
If it isn't open to all, it isn't
fair.
What was the good cause in
this case? The writer honestly
believed the personal backlash
his views might attract would not
make it worth his while to express
them. And judging by the tone of
a few people who called demanding
to know his identity so they
could set him straight, he may
have been right.
Were those views worth printing?
I think so. Attacking a
motherhood issue like peace may
not be popular here, but that
doesn't mean the movement
should be above criticism. It
certainly isn't in other parts of
this province.
The other point to remember is
that my letter-publishing policy
does not judge suitability according
to the opinion expressed.
Publishing only those letters
which are Politically Correct or
confined to the view of the
mainstream serves no purpose
but to discourage debate.
In this case, debate has been
encouraged, as you can see by the
letters on the following pages.
Numerous writers welcomed the
opportunity to spar with their
critic through reasoned argument.
They present their cases
well, and I feel our pool of
knowledge is better for it.
To those writers, the important
point is what was said, not who
said it. They realized there is no
sense shooting the messenger,
even if they didn't know who he
is.