Re: “More than 50 years later, we still clutch at pearls,” letter, April 15.

Saanich residents need not clutch at pearls to react unfavourably to amalgamation.

It might simply be Victoria’s poor capital allocation (Johnson Street Bridge fiasco, new pool budgeted at twice what New Westminster just spent, or seven-figure Centennial splash pad).

It might be Victoria’s attitude toward development (any new unit is a good unit, no matter what residents or the city’s staff might think).

It might be Victoria’s unfair sharing of resources (Esquimalt has long complained they pay more than their fair share of the VicPD budget).

Still, it might be Victoria’s disdain for the real opinions of its residents. (Look no further than the recent farcical Official Community Plan survey).

We are a long way from the 1950s. There are plenty of examples of amalgamation and a large body of research in the field. Quoting Howard Husock, formerly of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government:

“[S]tudy after study has shown that the efficiency gains of bigger government do not materialize. [The evidence in one such study established] that such economies existed in only two areas: fire protection and library services. Localities … can provide other services — police, recreation, public works, waste management — at equal or less cost than an amalgamated jurisdiction. … Somehow, however, the myth of efficiency through amalgamation lives on.”

Moreover, history has shown that amalgamation tends to result in suburban and rural taxpayers paying for the priorities of big-spending urban centres.

In a truly informed debate, the pro-amalgamation crowd faces a heck of an uphill battle convincing Saanich residents that a unified city will reduce costs, improve services, or maintain representation.

Shaun Cembella

Saanich

I read about the planned opening of a mental health centre for addicted youth at the Eric Martin Pavilion with incredulity.

As a nurse who worked with troubled youth and their families at the sixth floor unit at Eric Martin Pavilion in the 1980s, and who worked with professional staff to design and plan programs for the purpose-built Ledger House, I remember well the many reasons why EMP was not suited for in-patient care of children.

I remember the optimism and hope.

What has happened? What are the reports? The stats? Have children not benefited?

Was fresh ocean air, beaches, ground floor buildings not conducive to ­improving the mental health of children and youth? Particularly in-patient care?

How can a sealed building that towers up into the sky be preferable? Never underestimate a desperate or out-of-control youth when they decide to flee, even from six floors high. (I know, this time the fourth floor is under consideration).

If economics is the driver … if in-patient care has proven expensive, then at least consider putting the out-patient program in the sealed tall building, because the youth can go home at night.

In-patient mental and/or addiction health care for our youth, is costly, yes. We need to understand that. Not caring for or treating them is even more costly … in social, personal and economic terms.

Surely we can do better than to return to a building that proved itself to be........

© Times Colonist