During 2009, I volunteered with the Copenhagen movement. Although I met a lot of passionate and effective people, I had an eye-opening experience. I believe politicians aren't working toward sustainable solutions because such sweeping changes aren't seen as electable and because as people, they don't know what sustainable society will look like because we haven't envisioned or built it yet. I think the solution is far more local.

A year ago I attended What is Plan C, a grassroots conference on the converging effects of climate change and rising oil prices. Perhaps you were there. After a year, I have integrated the effects of this powerful conference and I want to do something.

All over the world, communities are taking matters into their own hands and designing solutions. Are you interested in seeing a citizen-led initiative to an Energy Descent Action Plan? Do you want to see a Transition Town Halifax come to life and have a say in our post-carbon future? Contact me at velveteyeball@gmail.com, and we'll see what the next steps are. —Jen Stotland, Halifax

I am perplexed by Tim Bousquet's piece on the start of the public consultation process re: the new Five Bridge Lakes Candidate Wilderness Area west of Halifax ("Another public land grab," Reality Bites, February 25). The accompanying map---which incidentally shows only a portion of the land parcel in question---completely misidentifies HRM's western Common, site of a planned regional park.

The land parcel mislabelled as western Common on Bousquet's map are actually HRM-owned lands on the shore of Big Five Bridge and Moores lakes. Like the western Common, they also have been originally owned by the old City of Halifax water commission. The proposed dam that was to be built at the outlet of Moores Lake had been cancelled many decades ago, and Halifax gets its water from Pockwock Lake instead.

My main point is that the upcoming public consultations will deal with the future status of the chunk of provincial Crown land known as the Five Bridge Lakes Candidate Wilderness Area, not with the above HRM-owned properties. —Dusan Soudek, Halifax

To all of The Coast staff who worked on the library edition (March 4): Thank you for your library-focused issue of The Coast. From the editorial to each of the articles, the journalists at The Coast have shown they have a clear understanding of what libraries are and why we need them. Thank you for presenting such a variety of ideas and viewpoints, and for reminding readers that there will be future opportunities for public consultation regarding the design of the new library.

Finally, thanks to all of the Coast readers who shared their thoughts about what they'd like to see in the new library. When the public consultation meetings are scheduled, please, make every effort to be there. As Niall Savage pointed out in Sue Carter Flinn's story

"Beyond the Walls," "The new library should be like the Common land: for the people. This is for everyone." —Marlo MacKay, communications officer, Halifax Public Libraries

The RCMP and Halifax Regional Police have been discussing the pluses and minuses of continuing to have RCMP contract policing in the HRM (See "Cop vs. cop," Reality Bites by Tim Bousquet, page 4). The question has apparently been decided on cost effectiveness with some politics thrown in and very little public engagement.

At present we have in the region two police chiefs: the Chief of the Halifax Regional Police and the superintendent of the RCMP, who each look after their respective police services. On paper the chief of Halifax Regional Police is responsible for all of HRM, however in reality he does not call the shots for the RCMP who are under contract to HRM.

The present arrangement appears to have failed, since Halifax still has one of the highest rates of violent crime in Canada. Why is the rate so high if we have two capable agencies combining resources? Maybe it is because there are separate policies involved and separate accountability processes. Maybe it is because of local RCMP stewardship or maybe it's because of stewardship within the Halifax Regional Police---most other regions have one police service but HRM has two, yet still remains in the top 10 most violent cities in Canada.

On the economic side, does HRM need to rely on contract policing or is it prepared to police the HRM under one police agency? No doubt the size of HRM will once again limit our options. —Jim Hoskins, Halifax

Halifax has been settled, expanded and redefined for the past three centuries. This city has a storied past that is part of our identity. That said, there is a difference between history and heritage.

History is the inherited relics and stories of our shared and individual past. Heritage is what we value in the past. To use the words of Robin Quigg, "Not all old buildings, structures and histories are heritage." Heritage should be beneficial; it is composed of the things that we consciously decide to keep, not simply all of the things from the past that we still have.

If all our collective histories were heritage, Value Village would be a wing of the national archives. In order to truly be a dynamic city we must address and preserve our heritage when it has a positive effect on the city, and knock down the structures that are degrading the fabric of our streets.—Jordan, Halifax

The city's apology misses the mark, an opportunity

I am a masters student in the department of religion and theology at Saint Mary's University. I have spent the last few years dedicated to studying the black community in Halifax, and have recently been following HRM's offerings to the former residents of Africville.

The public apology made by Mayor Peter Kelly has left me disheartened and ashamed. The inhumane treatment of the Africville community has been on a never-ending roundabout since the 1850s. That is 160 years!

One hundred and 60 years of atrocious, disgusting behaviour and poor decision-making on part of HRM (then Halifax proper)---and a 12-sentence apology sums up the official list of regrets? This is the statement to Africville that we offer the world and our city?

Newton's laws of motion state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The apology crafted by the HRM to Africville is the metaphorical equivalent of balancing a dump truck against a smart car and being shocked when the scale tips. It is a disproportionate reaction considering the severity of the situation.

I am not under the assumption there is any combination of words that may be strung together to incite forgiveness for the horrors committed by the HRM toward Africville and its community. Some things are unforgivable. However, I do believe that the apology had the capacity to be much more than it was. It had the potential to shake HRM's foundation for community interaction.

One hundred and sixty years in the making! Imagine. It could have been a medium to inspire community bonding. It could have been an opportunity for every open-hearted citizen of the HRM to realize that the people of Africville are the epitome of what it means to be a dedicated, loyal, growing, surviving, sharing and thriving community of human beings. It could have been used to demonstrate that this community deserves to be held up as a role model for others.

And through the recognition of these things, the apology could have transcended a mere public address. It could have inspired and motivated changes of racist and prejudiced world-views that still exist in our own city.

We could have, one day, held the apology under the light fixture in the mayor's office only to find the words had disappeared. They had evolved, become alive. And that creation could have built something beautiful for every piece previously destroyed.

Perhaps it would have eventually embodied the closest possible human attempt at assembling an equal and opposite reaction. But alas, reconciliation efforts offered by the HRM toward the Africville community have been founded on a 12-sentence apology.—Georgia Richards, Halifax

Dear residents of Halifax: Have you ever thought about how lucky you are? I mean seriously, you have a wonderful city and are the nicest, friendliest people in the whole world and you sometimes overlook it. I just moved here and I am still waiting for someone to come and slap me out of this nice, mellow dream world.

Coming from Ottawa, where wearing a hoodie in the middle of January is never possible, people never say "please" or "thanks" and getting flipped off or sworn at is a daily occurrence, this place is a dream world. People here are actually nice. Like legitimately nice. They actually care about your day or about helping you out (my neighbour ploughed the end of my driveway when we got that snow last week! Still blows my mind, the weather here, by the way). This is amazing. Even just walking down the street and having people say "Good morning" or randomly talking to you in grocery stores (I have to admit, I'm still not used to people coming up and having a friendly conversation; back in Ottawa people only came up to you to ask for money or where to score some weed) is truly, truly awesome.

The crosswalk is one of the biggest changes I've had to face. Sure we had them in Ottawa, but they were more of a Frogger-type experience. I still run across or make sure that car is really stopping before I cross.

I thought only a select few of our civilization learned manners, but it's good to see that it is still an ongoing concept and actually used. I have met some of the nicest, friendliest people who would do anything to make me feel at home. I know I still have a lot of things to adjust to (like adding an s to certain words, like "anywheres" or "over theres") and saying "for shore" instead of "for sure" or learning not to be in a hurry to go nowheres. But this is home. Seeing the ocean every day or taking the ferry or seeing the local artist: I look forward to it all.

Next time you feel horrible about Halifax, think about all of the little wonderful things we take for granted. I feel like Indiana Jones, who's just found a lost city. —Joseph Armstrong, Halifax

Letter writer Peter H. gave a long list of lost buildings in Halifax that will lessen our charm and connection to historic events (February 18). What he did not mention is that the push by vested interests to overdevelop their properties stunts the growth that could be taking place elsewhere in HRM.

Why risk an investment if you can be undercut by a regional council that is always changing the rules? Might as well wait with empty lots until they can make an extra fortune. This does not serve the public interest. It will help maintain an interchange area that does not work.

The same principal is at work with the Halifax Common becoming a permanent concert space. This will stunt any chance to develop a stadium or expand Exhibition Park. Notice that Moncton's performance space is not downtown. —Blair Beed, Halifax

Your article expressed the concerns of many, that people on low incomes will be forced out of the areas they presently live in. I would love to see legislation which required all new condo and apartment buildings to have one subsidized, low-rent home for every 50 units. This would give people a chance to live well all over Nova Scotia. We now have pockets of poverty where low-income people are forced to live. With all of the new construction in Bedford, Dartmouth, Halifax and beyond, there can be many low-cost homes created in high-cost buildings.

Please contact your MLA about legislating affordable or subsidised housing in every new development. Let's give our MLAs a chance to redeem themselves with a humanitarian law which will dramatically improve the lives of thousands of Nova Scotians. Why not here? Why not now? —Terry Choyce, Bedford

As someone who spent most of my childhood in downtown Dartmouth, I was heartened to see The Coast take on the recent development proposals for the area in last week's issue ("Welcome to the new Dartmouth" by Matt Semansky, February 18).

The sense of a close-knit and safe community, augmented by quality schools, outstanding parks, lakes and proximity to downtown Halifax, was a large part of my parents' decision to purchase a home in this area in the early 1980s. However, there was no mention of the vibrant residential population of the area in this article. Painting Dartmouth as a backwater town with an itinerant population and desperate to attract pilgrims from central Halifax is offensive.

Had Semansky dug a little deeper, he would have found much more to explore than the "losing reputation" and "dark side" of the neighbourhood. He would have found great concern, spanning many years, over development ideas that do not complement the neighbourhood's small-town urban fabric, largely intact collection of older building stock and longstanding sense of self as a community. (Or perhaps this is what he meant by "heritage-heavy.")

I am perturbed that the writer of a feature article would spend so little time on background research for such a complex topic with a long history, yet so much on negative judgment calls and anecdotes about a cafe.

I would have liked to seen mention of the carefully researched, community-led planning documents for downtown Dartmouth and the Dartmouth Common that were put in place specifically to guide development decisions such as this one being faced now. These came out of the vocalization of residents that, while properly planned and tasteful infill development is definitely desirable for the area, jumping into bed with the first project to be proposed is of no benefit to the neighbourhood in the long term.

I can only hope that downtown Dartmouth doesn't see the same cheaply designed, faux-stone, out-of-scale condo projects that have spread across peninsular Halifax like an unsightly skin condition.

This will only happen if downtown Dartmouth residents remain active and clear in communicating their hopes for their community, planners respect the existing municipal planning strategy documents and the media does its best to portray the context of these issues accurately. —R. Kennedy, Halifax

The value of the past

As a person who loves to support the idea of Halifax as a caring, open-minded and somewhat sentimental city, I have to ask the question: Why don't we value our historic properties?

You would think we would be up in arms about losing so many historic buildings in one year, from the waterfront areas around Granville Street, to homes on South Park to historic residences on Hollis. All of these properties are being decimated, and for what reason? I have a hard time believing that all these buildings were completely beyond repair or lacked historical significance. I believe it all comes down to money talking, and Halifax is willing to sell its history out the window to the highest bidder.

In the name of progress, and keeping up with the Joneses (ie Toronto), we discard our Victorian and older homes like refuse-filled shoeboxes, as if they are a dime a dozen, only to replace them with cookie-cutter 30-storey glass-and- metal monstrosities. Do we want our historic waterfront to end up like the Queensway in TO, littered with mirrored tower after mirrored tower?

We will definitely live up to our Warden of the North title when all the quaintness is rubbed out by cement and metal facades, with no glimmer of the past left for tourists to gawk over. Surely next they will be opening up Citadel Hill as an amusement park and shopping experience.

As I walk the streets of our foggy, fair city, I see our old homes and buildings as familiar old faces, the faces that define our urban landscape as being progressive and edgy while still respecting the past. But each time I see another HRM development agreement application tacked to a post or tree near a historic home or building, my heart sinks a little deeper, as another one bites the dust.

What has happened to our sense of pride in these historic and iconic Halifax structures? It seems so easy nowadays to trash these places, sweep all the rubble out of eyesight and leave nothing but a gravel parking lot.

As an owner of a Victorian home, I appreciate its character and its presence, and no matter the guest, they are all in awe of its wide planks, stained glass and indicative charm. All of the tradespeople we have had through for restoration say, "They don't make them like this anymore." So it begs the question: why are we knocking them down, if they are so irreplaceable? If it means that a type of architecture is on the chopping block merely because it is not flashy or modern, our Halifax charm goes with it. It also calls into question the whole purpose of a Halifax Registered Heritage Property when they, too, are being sliced and diced and put under the wrecking ball. Where is our heritage committee now?

As the Bower, Halifax's oldest home, located in the south end, stands to be "converted" into a three-unit residence, it will move from its 1790s charm to an assumed 21st century condo mishap, and no one stands in the way. Period homes and cottages near Point Pleasant Park on Tower Road are destroyed one by one, to be converted to pressboard townhouses. A fast food outlet will replace a turn-of-the-century home near Spring Garden and Queen.

The list goes on---there one day and gone the next. Just ask any of these home and business owners, who no longer value the significance of their historic property, and they'll say, "It's costing too much and I can't afford the upkeep." Why did they buy it in the first place? And where are they getting the thousands of dollars to destroy, deface and rebuild?

We may be the city of lakes, the little green city that could, but why can't we be the fun-loving and beautiful city that also loves its historic spaces? —Peter H., Halifax

In defense of Preyra

I'm writing in response to Gerry Walsh's claptrap (Letters, February 11), of my own volition, without the knowledge of Leonard Preyra or any other MLA. I happen to believe in our democratic system, as flawed as it may be, and I am sick and tired of people like Dr. Walsh tearing it down for transparently self-serving reasons.

The self-righteous indignation coming from the losing Liberal candidate in Halifax Citadel last June is laughable. As though Saint Gerry from the party that turned political corruption in Nova Scotia into an art form would somehow have been immune to the growing witch hunt stemming from the auditor general's report!

Honest mistakes describe the large majority of the "questionable" MLA expenses of all parties flagged by the auditor general, and the reimbursement of Dr. Preyra's airline ticket is a case in point: You plan a business trip, and you want to take along a family member. You buy both tickets on your credit card, and submit the paperwork for reimbursement for your ticket. There is just one receipt, so you submit that, making a note that only yours is to be reimbursed. Paperwork goes from office to office, desk to desk, and along the way the entire receipt somehow gets reimbursed. This reimbursement, along with numerous others, comes on a single large cheque several weeks, even months later.

Now other than the fact that the system isn't perfect, where's the scandal here? An audit detected the error and the overpayment was paid back. The real scandal is the depths to which people like Dr. Walsh will stoop to gain a political advantage. Dr. Walsh ran against Dr. Preyra, and knows full well of Dr. Preyra's honour and integrity. And yet he chooses to participate in dragging an honourable man's reputation through the mud. Even for an old-time Liberal, Dr. Walsh's self-serving opportunism and disingenuity are breathtaking. —Dr. David Clarke, Halifax

Shame on Darrell Dexter's NDPs for betraying our trust and handing over our protected land to commercial industry---all wildlife, especially seals, deserves protection. To add insult to injury, the ones footing the bill for this commercial activity will be the Canadian taxpayer. Enough is enough---let's keep protected land protected!

—Leif Vernest, Burlington NS

I am finally getting around to writing about Tim Bousquet and property tax reform. I have followed his writings in The Coast since he started writing about the issue.

Bousquet has managed to do what a journalist is supposed to do! He did not pretend to adhere to any phony standard of journalistic objectivity, he didn't give equal weight to both sides of an issue---no, he stated his case, backed it up with facts and, I think, was almost single-handedly responsible for getting a majority on council to see the proposal for what it was---a piece of regressive shit.

Kudos to Tim and to The Coast for doing an excellent job on this issue. You guys should get awards for the work you did on this. Kudos and thanks.

Incidentally, I probably would have had my taxes lowered, but I'm crazy enough to think that those who have more should pay more! —Edson Castilho, Halifax

Thanks, Bruce Wark, for your editorial ("Supremely unjust," February 4) on the Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr. Aside from doubts that Khadr did kill an American army medic, the whole scenario is a philosphical minefield. If Khadr did kill someone in battle, why is it being called "murder"? Because if he's a suspected murderer, then so is every American (or any other) soldier.

America's armed forces sneak around this problem by claiming that he, as "an illegal combatant," was not allowed to kill, whereas they were. Of course, to argue this position, they had to throw away the Geneva Convention---which would view Kadr as a prisoner of war, deserving of human rights and humane treatment---and, also, the rules for the treatment of child soldiers. (Khadr, as you know, was 15 when he was captured.)

America, in my view, has created a monster, and has hindered the effectiveness of its own troops. It has made an American soldier a frontperson for a gang of toturers. If you were the enemy, would you want to surrender to such a compassionless mob? The logical outcome is that America is perpetrating war instead of winding it down. America would do better if it abolished torture, re-embraced the Geneva Convention and threw out all the trumped-up charges that were made to justify endless war.

The Conservative government of Canada would be wise, too, to bring Khadr back home, or risk being voted out in the next election. Hasn't that boy---now a man---suffered enough?—David Rimmington, Halifax