Skip to content

Letter: Talking residency & power potential

The Editor, I want to take this opportunity to comment on two articles the Nov. 17 issue of The Tri-City News.
home

The Editor,

I want to take this opportunity to comment on two articles the Nov. 17 issue of The Tri-City News.

1) “PoMo ponders locals-first presale policy”

I agree that the conditions that were allowed to develop in the real estate market have put home ownership out of the reach of most of those wishing to enter the market.

But the suggested locals-first policy will not address the problem, which is not one of availability but of affordability. A locals-first policy would still have developers build with an eye on foreign money, for those who will bid after the locals have been unable to make offers on overpriced luxury housing.

If we really want to help our own people, we must bring in a “no residency, no purchase” clause. This would force developers to build for the local market — i.e., affordable instead of luxury condos. A first-time home buyer would probably be quite happy without marble floors and granite countertops along with top-of-the-line stainless steel appliances.

2) “Canada should model clean power, not just sell the fuel” (Letters)

I agree with most of the points made by letter writer Steve Mancinelli but I must take exception with the suggestions to build coal-powered plants, and with the future of the Burrard power station. We have an abundance of natural gas, and this is what should be used for back-up power.

Natural gas is methane, a molecule which consists of one atom of carbon for four atoms of hydrogen while coal consists primarily of carbon. In the process of oxidation, which is what combustion is all about, natural gas produces one molecule of carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, and four molecules of water vapour, whereas burning coal creates almost exclusively carbon dioxide. Where would that leave us with our need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

As far as back-up power is concerned, did it make sense to shut down the Burrard Thermal power plant in favour of building another one at Woodfibre? The Burrard plant was built long ago and has been fully paid for — and relatively recently upgraded. All it requires now is routine maintenance to keep it operational. The decision to shut it down in the first place was politically motivated and did not make economic sense. Too much money has been spent in the past on politically motivated projects (Site C, Port Mann Bridge, IPP power purchases to name just a few).

It’s time, as Mr. Mancinelli pointed out, that we take a look at the big picture and make decisions based on needs, not politics.

M. Guenther, Port Coquitlam