To the editor:
Sure, the city can't keep the Conservatory open; it was the crowning centennial project in Thunder Bay, then Fort William in 1967.
After 45 years, you think the City of Thunder Bay could put some money into the infrastructure. But they can spend $900,000 on two bent I-beams at Port Arthur waterfront.
I don't want this to seem a Fort William and Port Arthur debate, but I guess the Fort William side of town can't have anything nice for our residents or tourists to look at.
You can't relocate the Conservatory plants down to the waterfront; they are far too large and will die in transport. There will be no financial savings, since $400,000 to $500,000 of the operating costs each year come from salaries and these people have seniority in our city's workforce.
They will have the right to move to or bump another city employee in another department. There will be no savings in closing the Conservatory, but will be a great loss to the community.
I have often gone to the Conservatory with my children over the years and have enjoyed it greatly. I have never gone to see the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra.
Maybe we can get rid of the Thunder Bay symphony and save taxpayers $1.4 million a year. Or rip down the white elephant called Victoriaville and save $600,000 to $700,000 a year that way.
The closing of the Conservatory will be a loss to all who call Thunder Bay home, a loss to all those people who have their wedding photo's taken there, loss to the elderly to have somewhere else to walk in the winter besides a shopping mall, a loss to our Christian religion who hold Easter morning celebrations there, and a loss to our children who would have a warm place to go with green plants in the middle of our harsh winters.
A shame on the city bureaucrats, who look only at the bottom dollar, and not the loss to our community. If we can not afford to upkeep the buildings and repair the infrastructure we already have, we shouldn’t be spending any monies on projects we obviously can not afford.
Chris Mills,
Thunder Bay
