|
|
|
LETTERS TO EDITOR IN SUPPORT
Feb. 13, 2006
Feb. 16, 2006
Feb. 17, 2006
Feb. 21, 2006
Feb. 21, 2006
Feb. 21, 2006
Feb. 21, 2006
Feb. 28, 2006
Feb. 28, 2006
March 2, 2006
March 2, 2006
March 21, 2006
March 22, 2006
March 24, 2006
April 1, 2006
April 26, 2006
May 25, 2006
July 22, 2006
July 25, 2006
July 27, 2006
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Kudos to inter-faith community for fight
PETER MEISENHEIMER
(Feb 13, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'Religion case deserves airing' (Guelph Mercury, Feb. 10).
While I preferred (somewhat unusually) the Mercury's editorial take to Scott
Tracey's column, both missed a larger point regarding the latest challenge
to Wal-Mart's corporate vandalism in northern Guelph.
Wal-Mart appears to have won this fight, and many other similar thumpings of
local communities around the world, by the simple expedient of never, never,
never accepting any community standard, local planning ruling or legal
judgment as the last word until all options had been exhausted. Wal-Mart's
track record leaves no doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot they
would not be dissuaded from taking things further by any consideration of
whether the community or courts had spoken. It is naive to suggest that they
will ever be stopped by any community that does not adopt the same approach.
Kudos to the inter-faith community. You have more spine and more integrity
than the council majority that Wal-mart and its pals in the property
development industry have purchased for themselves here in Guelph. Thank you
for refusing to roll over to bullies.
Peter Meisenheimer
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Wal-Mart could simply choose a new site
ED BUTTS
(Feb 16, 2006)
Dear Editor - If Wal-Mart is as anxious to serve Guelph as its spokespeople
claim, why doesn't the company just choose another location?
That option has always been there. Could the reason be that the giant
retailer doesn't want to set a precedent? Could the company be afraid that
such a move would be encouraging to people in many other communities who
have refused to allow Wal-Mart to come in on its own terms?
Might the CEOs down in Arkansas be concerned that Wal-Mart would be
perceived as less than invincible?
Maybe they are worried about newspaper articles describing Goliath's loss to
David in a small Canadian city, or even that someone like Michael Moore
might come here and make a film about it.
Ed Butts
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Look to the future in planning choices
ROLF PEDERSEN
(Feb 17, 2006)
Dear Editor - Although I disagree, I cannot blame those who scoff at the
notion that the Ignatius Jesuit Centre and two cemeteries comprise a sacred
strip that needs to be protected from the desecrating impact of a busy
regional commercial complex anchored by a Wal-Mart outlet.
One person's sacred space is often another's undeveloped wasteland. And who
knows for sure what is sacred and what is not these days? There is no
community consensus. Still, we need to entertain the possibility that
yesteryear's decision-makers -- the officials who decided on the location
for the Jesuit Centre and Woodlawn and Marymount cemeteries -- may not have
been entirely superstitious and backward.
What if they were not lacking in foresight, but were guided by a more firmly
grounded spiritual wisdom which we moderns, in our eternal quest for
job-creation and ever-lower prices, have learned to resist?
On the off-chance that these low-tech decision-makers were every bit as
smart and forward-looking as are our current city council members we may all
be facing forces that are more powerful than we can imagine. In which case
the question should be: can we afford to reconfigure Woodlawn Road and
disrupt current north-end life only to have this sprawling regional
commercial centre become half-vacant, paved-over space in a few year's time?
Rolf Pedersen
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Opponents trying to bring sanity back
STEPHEN NORTON
(Feb 21, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'It's time to give up the fight over Wal-Mart' (Guelph
Mercury, Feb. 15).
Is the multi-faith group or Wal-Mart wasting the taxpayers' dollars? It
depends on your point of view. I'll reveal mine by stating how delighted I
was to see that the multi-faith group decided they needed to take forward
the challenge with the clear focus that the city bylaw allowing the
development at Highways 6 and 7 violates the freedom of religious practice
guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Recently, letter writers have been crying out that the group's action is
"insanity," that tax dollars are being lost, and that it is all the fault of
this group. I think we all need to take a deep breath and remember that it
was Wal-Mart (with the assistance of our present pro-development city
council) who overturned the Official Plan and introduced the new bylaw. It
is people like Bill Hulet, the multi-faith group, and the Residents for
Sustainable Development group before them, who are attempting to bring
"sanity" back to the process, attempting to restore the zoning status to
that now famous -- infamous -- corner in Guelph.
Finally, I was amazed to read that one letter writer believes we are the
"laughing stock of Ontario" because we still don't have a Wal-Mart. I wonder
what that will make us if, and when, we do get one? If we get one at that
corner, they will certainly be laughing down in Bentonville, Arkansas. All
the way to the bank -- their bank.
Stephen Norton
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Complex has inherent noise and traffic issues
NORMAN LIOTA
(Feb 21, 2006)
Dear Editor - I find the tone of the rhetoric aimed at those who would
choose to keep peaceful contemplation available to the entire community by
preserving the Ignatius lands very disappointing. The opponents of extensive
commercial development at Highways 6 and 7 -- erroneously referred to as
Wal-Mart opponents -- are simply pointing out that large-scale commercial
development infringes on the entire community's ability to use the lands for
spiritual pursuits.
The use of land as an aid to inculcate spiritual experience is not unique to
any culture or faith tradition. In fact, one does not have to adhere to a
particular faith to benefit from such open air cathedrals that exist at that
location. Unfortunately, there is no way to enclose the cathedral of the
Ignatius lands. It is this lack of doors and walls that is the value of such
a place, the open access to something larger than ourselves.
The proposed 155,000-square-foot complex has inherent noise and traffic
issues that would seriously infringe on spiritual practices. It is also
clearly visible from Ignatius Hall. To those who think this is a fringe
group, they should take a few moments to find out how widely regarded and
widely used the Ignatius Centre, the organic farm and Loyola Retreat House
are.
To those who complain about how their tax dollars are wasted by the current
Charter challenge, I think it's time to ask the city how it has allowed this
conflict of land use to emerge.
Norman Liota
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Store placement is disrespectful
ANDREA ROBINSON
(Feb 21, 2006)
Dear Editor - Whether it be the Residents for Sustainable Development or
religious groups via a Charter challenge, the fight against Wal-Mart must go
on and I thank those who are carrying this forward albeit indirectly, on my
behalf.
I have read articles, editorials and letters to the editor in your paper and
the bottom line for me is still the fact that Wal-Mart has made a conscious
decision to bully the citizens of Guelph.
Whether or not people think Guelph should have a Wal-Mart is not the issue.
There will never be consensus on this point, so it makes no sense to even
enter this argument. What is so appalling and distasteful is that Wal-Mart
feels it can set up shop wherever it likes.
How would you like a superstore in your backyard? If Wal-Mart opens at
Highways 6 and 7, it will be in my father's backyard as he is buried on
Ignatius land.
This is not only disrespectful to my father and others who rest there, but
also to those who have provided leadership to the city's Official Plan on
behalf of all Guelphites.
Andrea Robinson
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
This argument has merit
PAUL COLES
(Feb 21, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'Basis for challenge of Wal-Mart a farce' (Guelph Mercury,
Feb. 16).
The letter writer asked "which side of this argument would (Jesus) be on" in
reference to Ignatius College, and a multi-faith group's fight against
commercial development. Does the writer really think Jesus would be on the
side of consumerism. Our city council seems to favour it over the right of
people to spend some time in quiet meditation, but I think Jesus, as it says
in the gospels, would slip away to a quiet place to pray.
If the letter writer would visit the building that houses the tenants he
would see they are not in anyway near the area of prayer.
When I worked for the Jesuits I would often go for a quiet walk outside in
the evenings and the quiet was sometimes broken by traffic when traffic was
heavy, or by noisy motorists who were being noisy, but mostly the quiet was
amazing even though there were offices in the building. The only noise that
would be heard in that building came from the outside, not from within.
In the quiet of the evening, and in the still air, the sounds of the city
can be amplified, so I really believe from experience that Wal-Mart will
cause a definite distraction to the prayerful silence that has been the norm
at the Ignatius Jesuit Centre.
The Jesuits' argument is not a farce, they are right in wanting to maintain
a peaceful atmosphere at the centre. It is one of the main reasons why
thousands of people go there to meditate and pray.
Paul Coles
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Safety should be a consideration at corner
GERARDUS RYKS
(Feb 28, 2006)
Dear Editor - Looking back not too long ago, the seniors living across from
Canadian Tire made a big uproar that they had to cross Woodlawn Road to shop
at Zehrs, fearing they might get killed or hurt.
Can you understand what happened when Wal-Mart said it wanted to put up shop
there?
Wal-Mart will do everybody a big favour not to build on that corner. The
fathers can follow their faith, the cemeteries have peace and nobody gets
hurt or killed trying to shop at Wal-Mart.
I think it was the right decision for the city not to grant Wal-Mart a
permit to build in the first place because of the above reasons.
Gerardus Ryks
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH TRIBUNE
A ray of hope
(Feb 28, 2006)
It was with happy consternation I read about the multifaith charter
challenge now underway to city approval of a massive commercial development
planned for the corner of Hwy. 6 and Woodlawn Road.
I had glumly resigned myself to the bulldozer of progress destroying another
intangible good of life in Guelph (i.e., the silence and solitude to
contemplate or mourn), when lo! a ray of hope!
Thank you to the Chapmans for leading this effort, and to your editorial for
highlighting how the Ignatius Jesuit retreat centre is an asset to the city
(and to many beyond the city, too) in our busy, materialistic society.
I'm glad that the question of protecting sacred spaces (which involves a lot
more than not plowing them under) is getting some major air time in our
highest courts!
Suzanne Duiker Kroon
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Big stores have money, that's all that counts
JOAN WIPPERMAN
(Mar 2, 2006)
Dear Editor - It is obvious to me that Wal-Mart will eventually come to
Guelph, regardless. I myself am against it, but I would not shop there
anyway.
I hate big-box stores, I am terrified to go in these huge stores where I do
not know where anything is.
However, I am a senior, so do I really matter?
These stores have the bucks which is all that counts, and I am only sad that
the Americans are taking over our country. Soon there will be no more
Canadian-owned stores. That's just my opinion.
Joan Wipperman
Rockwood
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Uninvited guest has wreaked havoc here
JOHN OOSTERHUIS
(Mar 2, 2006)
Dear Editor - It is sad to watch how Wal-Mart's "very preliminary" site
preparations are drastically changing the landscape in the north end of
Guelph. It baffles me how an uninvited U.S. company, which is being sued
from many different sides for it's employment practices, can override local
government and drive a wedge between two cemeteries with total disregard for
the sensitivities of the local community, even causing division between its
citizens.
Wal-Mart, which has become a very profitable company by making huge profits
for its head office in the U.S. from local communities all over the
continent, does not hesitate to leave a wasteland when things don't work out
for it.
I feel very fortunate to be a resident of this great community for many
different reasons.
I hope this particular development is not a sign of things to come and that
our local government will be able to protect Guelph in the future from
uninvited guests who enforce their demands on our community.
John Oosterhuis
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Wal-Mart does not have the city in mind
ANITA BERRY
(Mar 21, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'Wal-Mart quote seems hypocritical' (Guelph Mercury, Jan.
25).
I strongly agree with the statements made by this letter writer. Wal-Mart
should stop playing games and taking advantage of decision making through
bullying and power. I am quite fond of Guelph's size, its entertainment,
shopping and resources.
Wal-mart has been trying for 10 years to have a location in Guelph, and
there has been considerable debate concerning the proposed location being
adjacent to the Ignatius Jesuit Centre. I understand that many are in favour
of the store's development; offering tax revenue, a shopping superstore and
jobs for the city. But the development of a new Wal-Mart is unnecessary.
Guelph already has two Zellers, two Canadian Tires, and a Zehrs
"superstore."
It has reached the point where I no longer enjoy the convenience of a store
that sells anything and everything. Small local businesses will suffer as a
result of Wal-Mart's unbeatable cost structure, a Jesuit community will lose
the peace it has enjoyed for many years and incoming Wal-Mart employees will
receive no benefits and mostly part-time work. If it is crucial for cities
to have a Wal-Mart, then certain parts of the city should be reserved for
large department stores, rather than interfering with less-commercialized
areas.
It bothers me that Wal-Mart refused to consider another location. With this
attitude, it does not have the city's best interest in mind. Wal-Mart sees
an opportunity in Guelph it would like to exploit. Although there is
significant support for the store's creation, there is considerable
resistance to the super-giant which might not necessarily be acting in the
best interest of Guelph.
Anita Berry
London, Ont.
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Who was here first in development fight?
SUE RICHARDS
(Mar 22, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'It's God versus Wal-Mart' (Guelph Mercury, March 18).
I'm curious. If the 6 & 7 development game is between Wal-Mart and God, who
would you say is the home team?
Sue Richards
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
System is keeping people impoverished
NIKKI HAMMOND
(Mar 24, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'It's God versus Wal-Mart' (Guelph Mercury, March 18).
This headline struck me on one hand as irreverently "tongue in cheek" and,
on the other, as somewhat alarming in the implication that "God is on our
side," since this way of thinking ends in either the trivializing of God or
the fostering of fundamentalist terrorism. Still, somewhere in-between these
two extremes, it does resonate, especially if we take a moment to consider
the link between sweatshops that employ children, the economic system that
reduces Third World workers' work conditions and superstores like Wal-Mart.
Most everyone wants the same thing -- the ability to support themselves and
their families -- too bad for all those people in Mexico or China who can't.
They aren't looking for a handout, just a job that will give them a fair
wage and working conditions that won't kill them. Globalization is rapidly
finishing off what colonialism began -- the devastation of local cultures
and economies, the rape of Third World natural resources and the
disenfranchisement of aboriginal peoples.
Consumerism bloats us with a sense of self-importance and entitlement. Even
our religious practices can be used to assuage moral responsibility instead
of stimulating it.
Wal-Mart is not the only player in this drama but, as the largest retailer
trading in today's market place, it is symbolic of a world system that keeps
so many impoverished. The headline captures the deeper issues at stake here.
As a near neighbour of the Ignatius Jesuit Centre, I endorse the ecumenical
approach to opposing Wal-Mart. To sum up my feelings on the matter -- not
there.
Nikki Hammond
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Wal-Mart is not above good planning
DAVID SILLS
(Apr 1, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'Religion is not above planning' (Guelph Mercury, March
18).
It's not that the facts in your editorial are wrong; it's that many of them
happen to be either outdated or used out of context.
For instance, you may have noticed that quite a bit has changed since the
Ontario Municipal Board hearings. For one, the Commercial Policy Review is
changing the face of retail in Guelph. Instead of a single Wal-Mart store at
the corner of Highways 6 and 7, we now can expect a sprawling
450,000-square-foot power centre.
Father Jim Profit's vision for the Ignatius Jesuit Centre is a good one: a
green, urban oasis where people can seek a spiritual connection with the
natural world. Such a vision should be celebrated and supported. Some people
crave more choice for shopping; others want nothing more than the choice to
leave rampant consumerism behind.
I have nothing but admiration for people such as Profit, Bill Hulet and Ben
Bennett, who have stood up to city hall and a corporate giant to insist on
more meaningful and sustainable development. That includes 12,000 citizens
who signed the petition saying the site at Highways 6 and 7 is not
appropriate for a big-box development.
And to those who have written a letter to the editor saying "Enough
already," I say this: If Wal-Mart had chosen one of several available and
appropriately zoned locations for their Guelph store 10 years ago, there
would have been no need for Ontario Municipal Board hearings or a
multi-faith Charter challenge, and tax dollars would have been pouring in,
rather than being spewed out on legal fees.
Wal-Mart is not above good planning.
David Sills
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
There's a reason why Wal-Mart should sit out
DENNIS GALON
(Apr 26, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'Hearing requires full airing' (Guelph Mercury, April 19).
For a decade, the zoning struggle at Woodlawn/Woolwich has been 'Citizens
versus Wal-Mart' with City Council and then the Ontario Municipal Board as
referee. From that perspective, it does indeed seem "odd to think about...Wal-Mart not being involved."
But that is not the correct perspective to understand round two.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies only to our governments.
The Charter challenge allegation is that city council has violated the
rights of citizens to continue practising their spirituality in the quiet
solitude of the Jesuit Centre by modifying property rights to the financial
advantage of Wal-Mart. The allegation is that people of faith are the
victims of council's decision, and that council is prohibited by the
Canadian constitution from imposing such bylaws.
This new round is 'Citizens versus Council' with the courts as referee.
Why should the beneficiary of an allegedly unconstitutional decision be
granted status to defend a government's alleged violation of citizens'
religious freedom? The lawyers have not found a single case in Canada
granting intervener status for a corporation to intrude its economic
interests into citizens' allegations their government has violated their
Charter rights. This is not surprising, since, after a national debate still
vivid in the memory of many Canadians, property rights were deliberately not
granted constitutional protection in our Charter.
Canadian values are different from the United States where property rights
are granted exalted constitutional protection. I can understand that
Wal-Mart, as an American corporation, might find odd the prospect of being
excluded, but why does this seem odd to the Mercury?
Dennis Galon
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Just another display of contempt by Wal-Mart
JOHN MCGUIGAN
(May 25, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'Permit in hand, Wal-Mart is going to build' (Guelph Mercury, May 20).
So, Wal-Mart has elected to start building their box before all of the challenges to their chosen location have been resolved. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, it's really just another display of contempt by Wal-Mart for a community that it claims to want to be a part of. Nothing new here.
I did note with some amusement the quote from chief building inspector Bruce Poole: "...they've built them a million times." Wow, lucky us, we get one too. It's a good thing that we have a sign further up Highway 6 announcing that you are entering Guelph, otherwise the steady march of anonymous mediocrity might confuse new visitors to our city.
John McGuigan
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Editorial has limited vision on Wal-Mart issue
PAT DARES
(Jul 22, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'No satisfaction in Wal-Mart outcome' (Guelph Mercury, July 19).
It is clear that you have missed most of the details of this announcement regarding the differences in this settlement and what was attempted during the past ten years.
And since they've been reported quite accurately by many other reporters and papers, including your own, I won't repeat them.
It's a sad situation when an editorial reduces the issue to a "pile of dirt" that could've been dumped ten years ago. How wrong you are!
So much more has been established by this recent agreement and process.
The positive outcome here has opened doors to communication and goodwill that even your negativity can't close.
Your short-sightedness is very obvious by your comment about Sunday shopping clearly "not having the societal effects some expected it would" proven by the fact that only one province has hung on to it's original position. What a bizarre statement.
How is that proof of the long-term effects?
Society is crying out with the effects of being over-stressed, too busy, not having enough down time and losing family values.
Sunday shopping is only one piece in the large picture of causes here, but a very relevant one nevertheless.
Unleashed consumerism is a much bigger piece, which Wal-Mart strongly promotes.
As with this societal situation, time will eventually make clear why the Jesuits and people of Guelph fought so long and hard to reach the compromises they have with Wal-Mart.
It's just too bad the paper has such limited vision.
Hopefully, your readers can see the truths, past your opinion.
Pat Dares
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Communities should learn from experience
ROLF PEDERSEN
(Jul 25, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'It's been a long time coming' (Guelph Mercury, July 22).
In his Saturday column, Kevin Groh, Wal-Mart Canada's director of corporate affairs, manages to weave a fanciful tale suggesting that his company's chief motives are to serve the people of Guelph and to become constructively involved in the social life the community. This line passes without further comment on the opinions page. Sam Turton, who has a much longer record of involvement in the Guelph scene, is derisively labelled "an opponent." This is because he is in favour of development which builds, not on what is repetitive and forgettable, but on a community's unique strengths. In part, I also suspect, it is because he does not sport a big, impressive-sounding corporate title like Groh's.
Well, I'm with Turton. Invasive and dehumanizing forces of sameness and mediocrity always need to be challenged to do more and better, and I think this challenge found success in the agreement between Wal-Mart and the multi-faith coalition of which Turton and I were both members.
Wal-Mart's basic job, as any honest Wal-Mart executive will tell you, is to make money for its shareholders. The job of any citizen is to do what is possible to make sure the community's unique strengths remain intact.
We can only hope that in striving to preserve the integrity of the Ignatius Jesuit Centre something of this has been achieved -- and that communities elsewhere learn from this experience.
Rolf Pedersen
Guelph
LETTER TO EDITOR - GUELPH MERCURY
Opposition was over exact location of store
STEPHEN NORTON
(Jul 27, 2006)
Dear Editor - Re: 'It's been a long time coming' (Guelph Mercury, July 22).
It was with a sense of considerable relief and satisfaction that I was able
to peel off my now tattered 'No Wal-Mart at 6 and 7' bumper sticker last
week. I'd like to thank and congratulate the many dedicated individuals who
steered this project to what appears to be a genuinely constructive and
positive resolution. Also, thanks to the people who actively, or quietly,
supported this community-based action. Without all the thousands of
supporters, the Residents for Sustainable Development, the multi-faith group
and the other leaders couldn't have done this work.
To read that Wal-Mart accepted an offer to come to the Jesuit retreat
centre, and then included further sound and sight improvements at the
boundary, helped restore my faith in the process of real co-operative
negotiation and community building. However, one aspect of Kevin Groh's
comments left me uncertain as to his sincerity. He stated his research
showed Wal-Mart was welcome in Guelph and there was a public cry to let
Wal-Mart build locally. He didn't, however, refer to the fact that none of
the opposition was over Wal-Mart being welcome in Guelph, or building
locally. It was where Wal-Mart wanted to build locally that concerned so
many.
Finally, let's not forget that this development is just one of several that
presently need the attention of people in Guelph who care about this city,
its future, and its children's future.
Stephen Norton
Guelph
~ back to top ~
|
|
|
