The Trail Times welcomes letters to the editor from our readers on topics of interest to the community. Include a legible first and last name, a mailing address and a telephone number where the author can be reached. Only the author’s name and district will be published. Letters lacking names and a verifiable phone number will not be published. A guideline of 500 words is suggested for letter length. We do not publish “open” letters, letters directed to a third party, or poetry. We reserve the right to edit or refuse to publish letters. You may also email your letters to editor@trailtimes.ca. We look forward to receiving your opinions.

The Trail Times welcomes letters to the editor from our readers on topics of interest to the community. Include a legible first and last name, a mailing address and a telephone number where the author can be reached. Only the author’s name and district will be published. Letters lacking names and a verifiable phone number will not be published. A guideline of 500 words is suggested for letter length. We do not publish “open” letters, letters directed to a third party, or poetry. We reserve the right to edit or refuse to publish letters. You may also email your letters to editor@trailtimes.ca. We look forward to receiving your opinions.

Keep taxpayer money out of ‘pretty’ plans

Letter to the Editor from Dale Evans of Trail

Regarding the power lines that are obscuring the riverfront “revitalization.” (Power lines obscure riverfront revitalization, Trail Times, Aug. 30).

First off I didn’t realize it was a revitalization but a remodel of a hotel and a building of a library but that is here nor there.

Where I find it interesting in one area of the article it says “Every year, high priority projects are deferred or delayed as council tries to balance expenditure demands , but also tries to ensure that key assets are being upgraded with available funding while maintaining a reasonable level of property taxation.”

The “reasonable” level of taxation and the parcel taxes etc. etc. even now pushing property owners, be they residential or commercial, past their limits and tying up tax dollars for 25 years for pretty is only going to add to that.

This alone tells me that funds are tight and in cases not available to do infrastructure (road resurfacing etc. , which when deferred only gets worse and more expensive ) but they could have an estimated $500,000 in funds available and to be tied up for 25 years to make something pretty. Speaking of the estimated $500,000, where did that number come from?

We all know from past experience that estimates never go down and if this petition is passed and the work started then the unexpected comes into play and the costs goes to a million does the city free up a million for 25 years?

If 50 per cent plus property owners petition the city what happens to the other owners on the alley if they cant afford the 25-year tax increase? The city owning properties along the alley, are they allowed to vote and spend my tax dollars for pretty? If multi properties are owned by a single individual could that individual basically tip the petition over 50 per cent?

My feeling is leave our, the taxpayers’, money out of this and let the parties concerned arrange their own borrowing and the City of Trail should stay totally isolated from this.

Dale Evans

Trail