6 ~ Friday, January 9, 1987 - North Shore News News Viewpoint Covered in salt spray HE RECESSION must be over. Blessed with a milder winter than usual, road crews on the North Shore this year. have blatantly been squandering taxpayers’ dollars by shov- elling excessive amounts of rock saft onto local roads. Nobody likes slippery streets, let alone car smash ups, so few can complain about preventive maintenance to avoid the two. However, mild frosts and no snow calls for salt-shaking restraint. North Shore municipal councils are to biame, of course. Forever harping on the need to keep budgets in line, the hypocritical aldermen seem to be doing little to save a little white stuff for a snowy day. In the meantime, salt keeps piling up on the curbs and side- walks of communities throughout the North Shore, Taxpayers are not the only ones who lose in the cur- rent salt spray. Gardeners curse the carnage salt causes to lawns and gardens, Pedestrians bemoan the destruc- tion of their leather shoes. Motorists are especially damned hecause of salt damage and consequent rust to their cers. So shape up members of councils. Ensure safe streets but try going sodtuci-free for a while. Spread the salt judiciously, where it’s needed when it’s needed. Council coffers and taxpayers’ humor may just get a little healthier. © Peter Speck Noel Wright Barrett Fisher Linda Stewart medal DE Matagtaphs Wl ot “he tty Ot Ot 1 Lgl raters, tied maternal mc udeng manus rity Publisher: Editor-in-Chief Managing Editor Display Advertising 980-0511 Classitied Advertising 986-6222 Newsroom 985-2131 Distribution 986-1337 Subscriptions 986.1337 SUNDAY > WEDNESDAY . 1139 Lonsdale Ave, North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 2H4 Entire contents 1986 North Shore Free Press Lid All nights reserved 58,287 (average, Wednesday Friday & Sunday) SDA PAVISION jisgruntied Letter Writers amation or contempt of court we don’t have the resources ta take Editor replies te Dear D.L.W.: wore than two-thirds of a letter- posing letters which must be size sheet with single-space typing. the more vigorously those view- 1 published to preserve a fair Thank you for writing to us on a subject you felt to be of consider- able importance—for going to the trouble of checking our address, finding a stamp and taking the fet- ter to a mailbox. These things are time-consuming and show you are a caring person. So you’re natural- ly mad at us that your letter never got into print. Bear with me while I explain a few of the possible reasons why it didn’t. But first and foremost let me say one thing loud and clear. We NEVER “‘suppress’’ any Iet- ter because we don’t agree with its wricer’s opinions. On the contrary, we welcome viewpoints of every kind and — subject only to con- siderations of taste and legality — points are expressed, the better. In practice, however, there are a few other little points you should know about when next you write (as I hope you will): (1) We receive a minimum of seven to eight readers’ letters every day, but often appreciably more. We have only three editions per week and only so much space can be given to letters. So certain backlogs are inevitable. (2) Our policy is to print letters covering the widest possible range of topics and issues affecting readers from Deep Cove to Lions Bay. So if we receive too many let- ters saying essentially the same thing about the same subject, we can publish only a selection of them — especially if there are op- “balance’’, Otherwise we neglect an awful lot of readers with no in- terest in that subject but lively, totally different interests in other matters. . (3) Letters that have to be tem- porarily held back for the above reasons often become outdated or overtaken by events, and therefore pointless. ; (4) Quite a few letters are much too long. To print them in full would push out other, shorter let- ters which may be equally signifi- cant. But shortening long letters is a time-consuming process for our editors and may sometimes be vir- tually impossible without destroy- ing their meaning. Generally speaking, an ideal length is not (5) All letters must be signed and bear an address and phone number for verification purposes. These details must also be legible. We don’t print street addresses, only the city or district. We will withold names on request only for very sound and obvious reasons otherwise we think letter-writers should be prepared to stand up and be counted. Unsigned, no- address letters go straight into the waste basket. (6) We don’t print statements containing libel, defamation or contempt of court. If these can’t be edited out, we don’t print the letter at all. The same goes for grossly bad language. (7) Apart from patent libel, def- responsibility for the factuas accu- racy of every reader’s letter. In cases of obvious and serious inac- curacy we will draw attention to it in an Editor’s Note, provided this doesn’t take up too much space. In general, however, we must leave it to other readers to correct misin- formation and misapprehension with letters of rebuttal. We hope, dear D.L.W., that these comments may be helpful the next time you put pen (or type- writer) to paper. We love to hear from you and we’re always sad if — for whatever reason — it proves impossible to print you. May you have a very happy New Year! Noel Wright Editor-in-Chief | RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Feds’ approach ‘damaging’ Dear Editor: The damage that has been done to Canadian basic and applied research efforts in the past two years under the Mulroney stewardship borders on the tragic, and could we!l guarantee Canadian status as a newly de-industrialized country by world standards. The lack of clear government leadership in science and technology matters, and the continual reduction in the budgetary outlays to science and technology, typified by the budget cuts of the National Research Council (NRC), are cases in point. In the 1984 federal election campaign, Mr. Mulroney promised as part of his national agenda to greatly increase Canada’s spending on research and develcpment from 1.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent of our nation’s gross national product, in line with that of the other major industrial nations. Instead, like so many other of his election promises, like for instance his promise of an open and fair gov- ernment free of favoritism, he has done the opposite — and in spades! Since 1984, under Mulroney’s stewardship, Canada’s spending on R&D has not increased from 1.3 per cent, but has actually begun to decrease. In addition, last year under his stewardship Canada’s trade deficit in high-technology goods grew up to a record $14 billion, meaning we produce much less than we consume ini this vital trade area. The lack of competent government leadership in science and technology matters, and the continual reduction in the budget outlays to science and techno- logy, are seriously damaging this country’s economy and our future prosperity. We have to insist it stop. Patrick Braskiewich North Vancouver hat happened to Ethiopia? Dear Editor: What ever happened to Ethiopia? Is everything going perfectly over there or what? ; For some reason the suffering and death in that foreign land has been erased from the news and our minds. Two years ago, at Christmas time, one could not turn on the TV or radio without seeing or hearing something to do with the terror in Ethiopia but now hunger is old news and everyone acts like the pro- blems in Ethiopia, and similar countries, were solved by a few songs. The problems are long from being solved and there are very few people {eft who stili think about these problems enough to take action. What is needed is a major reminder that there is the same hunger ex- isting now as there was two years ago. Unfortunately, | have not the power nor ingenuity to bring about a reminder of the suffering. Hopefully this letter will inspire a few peo- ple, if not a whole country, to continue with aid to this seemingly forgotten land, Erika Warkentin North Vancouver rr ee