STORY CONTINUES BELOW THESE SALTWIRE VIDEOS

The solar garden in Antigonish is to be located on the town’s former dump site. While the town is marketing the repurposing of a contaminated site as a green project, this is not the reality. The latest version will involve clearcutting an undeveloped wildlife corridor. This corridor is located in an area which may never have been harvested. It’s known as karst topography, which is recommended for protection according to the Nova Scotia Silvicultural Guide for the Ecological Matrix July 2021.

However, the town will not be deterred. After all, this is a green project, right?

Work to date has seen the clearing of valuable trees, only to be presumably chipped. Test pits and auger holes resulted in increased siltation/leachate to nearby Rights River, with one test pit installed approximately 20m from an eagle’s nest.

The reality is the former dump site has never been properly assessed, so the level and extent of contamination is unknown. Given its geological setting, it is reasonable to assume contamination has and will continue to migrate offsite. The town currently uses, and will continue to use, the site for the disposal of excavation material. In addition to this inert material, it was also discovered sewage was being dumped onsite.

It appears the town has a bad case of tunnel vision and ignored other viable locations. According to the former project lead for the past two years with AREA (the organization overseeing the solar garden construction), this was the only site he was asked to consider.

To add insult to injury, only residents on town power can participate in the rebate program, even though the project is in the county of Antigonish.

Now don’t feel left out, after all, more than 70 per cent of the cost of this project is being paid by you, the taxpayer. Now we can all say we are doing our part to reduce GHG emissions!

Recent news of two young drivers being “clocked” at nearly 130km/ph whilst inbound on Joseph Howe Drive at Lexington Avenue at 9:45 on a weekday morning is beyond disconcerting. It is downright frightening.

Being observed at 130km/ph on a 100 series divided highway will most often earn the offending driver a fine of several hundreds of dollars. And Joseph Howe Drive is not a divided 100 series highway. It is a residential street lined for the most part with houses, a large apartment building, and a major office complex, with people coming and going all the time.

Though it is nice to know these two drivers will be substantially fined, their cars have been impounded, and their licences suspended, I hope authorities review these charges and perhaps substitute for them something more criminal in nature.

There have been no right whale deaths since cruise ships were banned over two years ago.

Being filter feeders, the whales just love the ground-up waste from thousands of meals discharged overboard, at night, as soon as the ship is 12 miles offshore. Following cruise ships, using the exact same route, then hit the feeding whales.

Two years! Coincidence? I think not.

It’s time to stop blaming fishers for a problem that is not theirs. I expect we will soon see reports of dead right whales in the Northumberland Strait and entrance to the St Lawrence River.

Re: “Absurd, rabid hatred of all things Russian,” April 18, by Henry Srebrnik.

A professor from U.P.E.I. should know that there was a Ukrainian Peoples Republic from 1917-1922, when it was forced to become part of the U.S.S.R.

Stating the Ukraine did not exist prior to 1991 is playing fast and loose with history. Stalin certainly felt it was a distinct entity within the U.S.S.R. when he starved millions of the Ukraine’s population to death in the ’30s, to feed the true Russia.

There, at last someone has said it, and with the visibility it merits. I refer to Ralph Surette’s groundbreaking column of April 2: “Wolf at the door with $2-a-litre gas.”

The key message Surette conveys is that the world has now reached the point, since the start of the Industrial Revolution 250 years ago, where continuing commitment to endless economic growth is undermining the planet’s life support systems on which all life on Earth depend.

To many, the claim Mr. Surette makes may well and understandably come across as so outrageous or discomforting as to be summarily dismissed. After all, it might be claimed, look at what we humans have been able to achieve over our history, thanks in major part to advances in science and technology. And is there any reason to believe that technoscience (ironically, the enabler of fossil fuel use) will not also provide us with a way out of the harm we continue to increasingly inflict on the health of the Earth’s bounty, and in doing so enable our increased consumption to continue unabated?

No, there is no doubt that our columnist’s claim of the unsustainability of today’s sacred cow of ever more economic growth as a goal of public (and private) policy could be seen as entering radical territory. However, Mr. Surette has science that backs up what he warns about (for one, see the 17-author review of evidence “Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future” in the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science, Jan. 15, 2021.) Nor is it probable that, for instance, the noted naturalist David Attenborough would openly make the same claim in the absence of empirical backup.

At the least, accordingly, given the significance of the issue that Ralph Surette has drawn attention to in his column, may I suggest as a Chronicle Herald reader the appropriateness of giving further attention to informed evidence on both sides of the question of the environmental sustainability of ever increasing economic growth and consumption. The stakes are high.

(Editor’s Note: We’ve received a deluge of letters opposing the new non-resident tax. Below is a small sample.)

In 1970, my husband was gifted approximately 27 acres of land from his father in Hunts Point. This was a graduation gift, not only for becoming a professional engineer from Acadia and Dalhousie universities, but for supporting himself through university.

My husband, now deceased, was raised in Nova Scotia. His engineering discipline brought him to the mining sector in Sudbury, ON, where we met, married and raised three children. Even though he resided in Sudbury, his heart and family remained in Nova Scotia. We spent a month every summer in Nova Scotia, and dreamed of building our own place on his familial land.

In 2007, our dreams finally came to fruition due to hard work and savings. We were able to build a home in Hunts Point. The reason my husband was so passionate about this was his wish to share with our children a legacy and be able to provide our grandchildren with many special memories of Nova Scotia.

That’s my family’s history with Nova Scotia. Over the years, we have relished the opportunity to be a part of the South Shore, our loving family, and the wonderful people who always welcomed us to the area. Now, the Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative government has decided to penalize outsiders — and by that, I mean fellow Canadians — for investing our hard-earned dollars in your province.

As a government, you will be overtaxing individuals who were born, lived, attended universities, and wanted to attain their dream of having a home in the province of Nova Scotia. Through the years, as a family, we have given back to your province by patronizing many of your restaurants and businesses while living in our home in Nova Scotia.

I say, shame on you for penalizing Canadians and a former Nova Scotian.

My family and I will be watching this situation closely, as will the entire country. We should be encouraging Canadians to vacation and spend their money within our own country rather than pushing fellow Canadians out of Nova Scotia.

Although it will break my family’s hearts, I will sell everything I have in your province and never vacation or spend money there again. You may get one home returned to the province if I am forced to take this action, but how many thousands of dollars will you be losing out of your economy when Canadians see how you treat other Canadians?

I might be only one small voice. However, I am speaking for my husband’s dreams, wishes and legacy.

Rosemary Smith & family, Sudbury, ON

Re: Nova Scotia’s CFA (Come from away) two per cent surtax.

I was a great admirer of Premier Houston until the government implemented this ill conceived property tax. I would advise him to fire whoever pitched this idea as, although it might be of some use in HRM, it will definitely have adverse effects throughout the rest of the province and certainly does not seem to fall in line with his track record to now.

Last year, I built a kilometre of new, approved private road to access new recreational/residential lots for the Ontario market. I will not be spending much money improving any more land until I see the effects of this CFA surtax (which probably means never).

What sense does it make for the Nova Scotia government to invest $12 million in tourism this year, then turn around and drive away tourists like us who made the ultimate commitment to vacation in the province by purchasing a property?

Non-resident owners make up a significant portion of the cottage industry. Our effect on the tourism industry is unique. We return every year to support local economies in ways the casual tourist cannot. We stay for months at a time, invite family and friends to join us and we don’t put a burden on the health care and education sectors.

More often than not, we have close family ties with resident Nova Scotians and we come home for the summer months to reunite with them.

Forcing us to sell will break our families apart. Is this the kind of divisive spirit you wish to promote in your province?

Unfortunately, we can’t vote, which means we have limited options. Many seasonal owners are considering selling their homes because of these taxes but who’s going to buy them? If they’re not winterized, locals will have little interest and the market will be flooded with cheap, rural properties waiting to be bulldozed by wealthy foreign developers who can afford to be in the game for the long haul.

Unless the government finds alternate ways to deal with the housing crisis, these taxes are going to desecrate the Nova Scotia cottage and tourism industry for the foreseeable future.

Scott Sullivan's letter (“Time to end predatory practices in Nova Scotia housing market,” April 28) asks if he should feel sorry for people from the U.S. who own second properties in the province having to pay more tax. His self-righteous position completely misses the problems with the non-resident tax.

Homeowners living outside the province are not looking for sympathy; we are looking to be treated fairly as, in most cases, we are Canadian citizens with longstanding Nova Scotia roots.

Economically segregating a tiny percentage of the population who, by virtue of living outside the province, have no vote, is discriminatory and simply wrong. Canadian citizenship does not come with a requirement to remain in one province for life, whereas, by his reasoning, being a Nova Scotian would require remaining in the province.

Isolationism is not a reasonable economic policy. Taxing people based on their current address rather than taxing property is a dangerous precedent.

What next, tax people on the basis of height?

The two tax levies on non-residents in Nova Scotia are punitive and discriminatory.

The five per cent deed transfer tax is a money grab from the pocket of a non-resident wishing to purchase a property in order to enjoy our beautiful province. The additional two per cent property tax superimposed on the municipal property tax is a definitive encroachment on municipal taxation territory.

These taxes will force many non-residents to sell their property because of the excessive financial burden. For example, this action results in an annual $10,000 extra tax fee on a $500,000 assessed property.

This taxation will specifically and negatively affect the economy of coastline communities, where most non-residents on a per capita basis reside, and where they spend their money. They will be leaving. A secondary result will be the devaluation of property of all residents living in coastal communities, as demand for new property acquisition decreases and a dramatic, elevated rate of property sales develops.

It must be noted that most non-residents have long-time connections with Nova Scotia. Many left Nova Scotia to find full-time employment, because full-time employment was not available locally. Many have had intentions to return to Nova Scotia during their retirement, to participate in the culture left behind in their youth. Part-time residential lifestyle, in contrast to full-time residency, is frequently the chosen option because of the reluctance to permanently leave their children and grandchildren where they have lived their working lives.

This new taxation is mean-spirited and denigrates the culture that is nationally recognized as being generous and welcoming. It is a proverbial “Not welcome mat,” crying out “Stay away!”

This new legislation needs serious reconsideration.

SaltWire Network welcomes letters on matters of public interest for publication. All letters must be accompanied by the author’s name, address and telephone number so that they can be verified. Letters may be subject to editing. The views expressed in letters to the editor in this publication and on SaltWire.com are those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinions or views of SaltWire Network or its Publisher. SaltWire Network will not publish letters that are defamatory, or that denigrate individuals or groups based on race, creed, colour or sexual orientation. Anonymous, pen-named, third-party or open letters will not be published.

Ensure local journalism stays in your community by purchasing a membership today.

The news and opinions you’ll love for only $14.99/month.

Start your Membership Now

Your home for the news shaping Canada's East Coast