LET­TERS TO THE ED­I­TOR

The Welland Tribune - - Opinion -

Ageism and dis­dain for democ­racy

RE: NEW RE­GIONAL COUN­CIL­LORS MULLING OVER NEXT CHAIR, NOV. 5 Why is Sandie Bel­lows be­ing so silly? Her re­marks were odd for some­one who was elected and al­legedly rep­re­sents the peo­ple of Ni­a­gara.

She said she was an­noyed by an email cam­paign in sup­port of Jim Bradley be­ing made re­gional chair.

“It’s not Jim's do­ing, but peo­ple who sup­port him,” she said. “I’m get­ting mes­sages ev­ery day. I don’t like it.”

Peo­ple get­ting to­gether to lobby for an out­come is part of democ­racy and oc­curs ev­ery day. If Bel­lows finds peo­ple ex­press­ing their point of view to her “an­noy­ing” then per­haps she can pub­lish guide­lines for those views she will con­sider and for those that will an­noy her and which would be un­wor­thy of her at­ten­tion.

As for want­ing some­one younger, I as­sume she means younger than Mr. Bradley. Is this ageism or anti-Bradley­ism? If she is against those above a cer­tain age, she should also an­nounce what that age is.

Age does not de­ter­mine com­pe­tence. Ms. Bel­lows’ age shows that peo­ple born that year can say ridicu­lous things that show a dis­dain of our democ­racy.

Barry Wil­son

St Catharines

Gale has too much bag­gage

Wow, Ni­a­gara Falls re­gional Coun. Bob Gale has a lot of moxie to think any­one even wants him to be re­gional chair.

Hasn’t he learned from his prior mis­takes, es­pe­cially in his deal­ings with the Ni­a­gara Re­gional Po­lice? He should be held ac­count­able for the money tax­pay­ers had to pay to cover the pay­out to for­mer po­lice chief Jeff McGuire.

Does he hon­estly think the pub­lic can’t see what he’s done and keeps do­ing? Like, come on, read the pa­per.

I’m hope­ful th­ese new coun­cil­lors have learned why they are there — and pre­vi­ous ones are not.

It’s nice to see the trans­parency. The ca­bal is gone .

Sharon Chepil

St. Catharines

Rate hikes shouldn’t hit ex­ist­ing loans

RE: GET USED TO RIS­ING IN­TER­EST RATES, NOV. 6

The big­gest con­cerns of the Bank of Canada are in­fla­tion and the high level of con­sumer debt.

An­other con­cern is the length of time it is tak­ing con­sumers to pay off their debts.

To com­bat in­fla­tion the favourite tool of the bank is to in­crease the prime lend­ing rate.

Lenders im­me­di­ately raise their rates not only to new loans but also to ex­ist­ing vari­able rate loans or mort­gages.

If the bor­row­ers are un­able to in­crease the rate of pay­ment they had bud­geted to pay in­ter­est plus an amount against the prin­ci­pal then the prin­ci­pal pay­back is re­duced, thereby in­creas­ing the length of time the loan is in ef­fect.

I have no prob­lem with lenders im­me­di­ately rais­ing their rate to cover the in­crease from the cen­tral bank, but it should not ap­ply to ex­ist­ing loans and mort­gages, only to new ones.

At the time the lenders granted the loans or mort­gages, they had monies in the sys­tem to sup­port them, so any in­crease in their prime rate does not in­crease the cost of car­ry­ing the loans and ac­tu­ally in­creases their prof­itabil­ity.

A ma­jor mort­gage lender in the U.S. ad­ver­tises that if you take a mort­gage with them and the prime rate goes up, your rate does not in­crease. Fur­ther­more, if the prime rate goes down, so does yours.

I am not sug­gest­ing Cana­dian banks should re­duce the rate on ex­ist­ing loans or mort­gages when there is a re­duc­tion in the prime rate. Let them re­al­ize the ad­di­tional profit this would pro­duce.

Jim McDow­ell

Thorold

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.