Letters, Dec. 10, 2019: A chandelier hanging beneath a bridge?
Credit to Author: Carolyn Soltau| Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 02:00:17 +0000
A chandelier in the Orpheum Theatre is beautiful. But hanging beneath a bridge?
Will the public be invited down there periodically to High Tea, to go with this opulent absurdity? How long before it gets vandalized? Who will pick up the tab for police involvement and investigation, medical costs for injuries, lawsuits, et cetera, when this happens?
The city didn’t pay for the chandelier, but had to agree to it. Apart from the danger of a 3,400-kilo object hanging above where people walk and drive, to me this “public art” highlights the growing spread between the extremes of luxury and poverty in the city, and North America.
A sad commentary on our humanity.
Sheila Weaver, Gibsons
How pleasing to now have a $4.8-million chandelier under the Granville Street bridge, which the city forced a real estate developer to fund in order to obtain his rezoning, permits, etc. for a condo development. The media, particularly TV, seemed very happy that taxpayers did not pay for it.
Of course, they must think the developer “ate” the $4.8-million cost. I bet they added that cost to the 106 units underlying the proposal, hence adding over $45,000 to the cost of each unit. Yet the city claims to be helping people to access cheaper housing.
With help like this …
John Hunter, North Vancouver
“Community gardens” are popping up everywhere. Dunbar now has several, including a whole city block. These benefit the developer because of significantly reduced property taxes.
Residents and businesses lose out because they must absorb the lost revenue. Residents also lose out because these lots are not being used for needed housing.
Is it time to review this tax avoidance and come up with ways to speed up development? We need to encourage the building of housing where there are empty lots.
David Brough, Vancouver
Re: Should clinics turn away those who are not ‘their’ patients?
I applaud Dr. Cadesky’s insights and his opinion. No one knows better the problems in primary care than doctors like Cadesky who endeavour to provide the best possible care for their patients. The problems in primary care in B.C. are real and are not improving, and his suggestions would help in the short-term.
The real problem is that so many doctors complete their two-year residency in family practice and don’t go into full-service family practice. When I retired 16 years ago, 60 doctors completed their residency that year, but only six had committed to full-time family practice. The rest chose instead to work in drop-in clinics or do locums. Those that chose to do locums provided a much-needed service to full-time family doctors. The ones that went to drop-in clinics often stayed with that option because they could make a good living working just a few hours per week and had no after-hour responsibilities.
The answer I believe is to truly recognize the value of family doctors and have a fee schedule that reflects their commitment to their patients. Drop-in clinics should be on a separate fee schedule to reflect the time that patients actually have per visit and the lack of follow-up and continued care. It seems ridiculous to me that doctors in drop-in clinics who see up to 10 patients per hour would be paid the same per visit as a family doctor who sees four to six patients per hour.
I think it is time to have a committee to study the problem, and have full-time family doctors like Dr. Cadesky and others like him on the committee. You might even include retired GPs like me who practiced long before the drop-in clinic era started. I am very concerned about the way the role of the “GP” has changed over the years.
David Harris, Surrey
Letters to the editor should be sent to sunletters@vancouversun.com.
CLICK HERE to report a typo.
Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.