Thank you to each candidate who provided the audience with a glimpse into why they would be the best suited to serve on council. Given the time constraints, quite a lot of valuable information was still shared.
At the onset of the first article on the fron of the Mountain View Albertan it states that the two main issues were the smell coming from Sundial, followed by the $10.7-million operations centre. Yet further on in the paper, the economic situation that also embraces the building of the new operations centre, was noted to have received more attention. This is somewhat confusing.
I wholeheartedly compliment Mr. Bishop on his compassionate support for the respiratory health of our residents and holding firm in his beliefs. However, I have concerns about the way the paper structured the extensive article.
The bold and enlarged typeface – Cannabis smell – on the front page, suggests that the odour issue takes precedence over all other issues.
Yet, on page 3, an interview with Hugh Bodmer indicates, in his opinion that …”most of the questions were about the economy.” I was there and concur with Mr. Bodmer.
This is confusing to the readership. Who do we believe, and do we have all the facts? Additionally, clarification of the difference between cannabis odour from Sundial versus the odour from cannabis that is being smoked needed attention.
The smell from Sundial and lung disease: did the reporter research the claim of lung disease, or increased risks to those suffering from lung disease, due to the smell emanating from Sundial, with non-biased medical professionals in order to clarify the candidate’s point? While the claim is being quoted, facts still needed to be investigated to substantiate the claim and inform readers.
We are talking about an odour. Are we talking about causal or effect? The inclusion of information from non-biased, qualified professionals would be important so as to not find answers that are grounded in moral or social ideology, but rather in scientific fact.
While there is more than ample information available from “Dr. Internet," one must consider agendas, personal or institutional biases, and the varying levels of sponsorship of the sources of that information.
Our beautiful town also deals with other serious odours such as the smell from canola fields or cattle manure; for me, the cattle manure being very apparent, especially, in my opinion, in Uptowne Olds on a breezy day, of which we have so many.
Will this also deter increased business in Uptowne Olds? Mr. Dobush, I do not believe the current Sundial smell will deter new businesses from coming or stimulate existing businesses to close.
Perhaps the focus needs to turn to the economic situation and its effect on business loss and how to attract new business and sustain existing businesses in general.
As for the odour, we need to work with Sundial, a major employer in our area, to find a balanced solution to the odour complaints. After all, Sundial is a significant employment resource in our area, and logically a source of tax revenue as mentioned by some of the candidates.
One more point: page 1 states, “About 150 people attended” while page 3 states “About 120 people came out to the TransCanada Theatre in Olds for the byelection candidates forum on Jan. 8.” Better information coordination between reporters may be a good idea, with accuracy and commentary better investigated prior to publication.
Rhona Segal,
Olds
