Trevor Dailey's Weblog

On October 1, 2015, the minimum wage in Ontario will rise again. This will bring it up from $11.00 per hour to $11.25 per hour, the highest rate in Canada. Minimum wage will increase each year in Ontario. I have already written about this subject here. I am strongly opposed to minimum wage law. Period.

For the past 4 years I have been greatly underemployed. I have been struggling and surviving on about 4 months of seasonal work per year. My budget is one that would likely shock most people who could not believe anyone could live at the low level I do. Many of the things most employed people spend their money on without a thought, I have been forced to eliminate from my spending. Everything is evaluated on cost. Everything. And still I have a current budget deficit of more than $2000. My small savings are what I use for my living expenses. This news of an increase in minimum wage makes me angry.

Why am I suddenly worth $11.25 per hour? I am not. I am a labourer. A person doing unskilled manual work for wages. This new minimum wage will further price me out of the job market. I can't tell you how many minimum wage jobs are requiring more and more experience as minimum wage rises. Experience I do not have. If an employer is forced to pay me more money, and I can't justify the extra cost, I am not getting hired. More and more employers are hiring through placement agencies because it is cheaper and easier. Temporary work is increasing because the Ontario government is making it so costly and difficult to hire someone.

Paul McKeever, the leader of Freedom Party, said in an interview that this new increase in minimum wage will hurt the young people getting into the job market for the first time, and the retired people looking to make some extra money. Although he is right is his opposition to minimum wage it seems like he doesn't get it all by making it sound almost trivial, like it was pocket money. It will hurt people like me.

Unskilled and over the age of 40 I just want to earn a living. I need to earn a living. If there was no government deductions off my pay cheque, I got to keep all the money I worked for, my minimum wage would be $8.00 per hour for 40 hours per week. That is $640 biweekly. (E.I. benefits are $608 biweekly) I have no doubt a could find a job tomorrow at that rate of pay. I could work my way to a higher rate of pay. I would have something instead of nothing. But I can't do that. The government steals money from my paycheque. (After deductions one's minimum wage net pay works out to be lower per hour than minumum wage) I must be paid $11.00 (25) per hour by law, and not one cent less!. A law that helps keep me unemployed. What I and my employer agree to for a wage should be none of the politician's or union leader's concern!

© Trevor Dailey

Audio: Just Right: Feb. 06, 2014: 336 – Guest: Paul McKeever – Freedom Party’s Opposition Budget / Minimum wages

Audio: Just Right: Jan. 16, 2014: 333 – Michael Chong’s a party pooper / Minimum wage – maximum damage

Why is it important to study history? Some will say it is because those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. I believe this is true.

If one goes back into the archives of Freedom Party one will find publications by Marc Emery.

The Downtown London Metro Bulletin (link to video) was first published in 1981. As I started to read the online copies of the publication, I had to give my head a shake. Although what I was reading was written by Marc Emery some 34 years ago, it was like I was reading something written today. I am amazed at how City Hall and voters keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again.

Downtown renewal? Ever hear city politicans talk about that? Marc starts at 1967 with some of many failed schemes by London City Council that have plagued London for almost 50 years.

Downtown businessmen can note that the 3 major [downtown] renewal projects (all failures) - the Centennial Hall (1967), Talbot Square (1972-1977) and the London Regional Art Gallery (1980) - has cost, in locally paid taxes alone, $9,200,000. Yes, that's approx. $9.2 million (includes land, buildings, losses, but not interest or certain administrator factors that are not available) down the tubes.

Since DOWNTOWN PAYS about 13% of all local taxes, divide that by the 890 businesses/property owners downtown, and you have an average COST OF $1343.82 per business!!!!! ($9,200,000 x .13 t 890). This does NOT include provincial or federal money which equals the municipal amount.

Source: Downtown London Metro Bulletin, May 15, 1981. (Page 5)

The failed downtown renewal schemes have continued unabated.

Pedestrian Malls? This reoccurring absurd idea pushed by some city politicians  (link to audio) has been coming and going for decades.

Pedestrian malls have been discussed a long time too. They were seriously discussed in 1965 and 1971....

Source: Downtown London Metro Bulletin, September, 1981. (Page 42)

The Research-[Administrator of] Zoning at City Hall, Jerry Tikalsky, [commented] that the City has not done any studies on East London Business Area (Dundas St. between Adelaide & Elizabeth) before, during or since the pedestrian-only mall fiasco of some years ago. Or at least the researcher was not aware of any studies. This, despite the fact the City poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the experiment about 7 years ago.

Source: Downtown London Metro Bulletin, May 15, 1981. (Page 6)

Their pedestrian mall, which in 1973/4 cost $500,000 was split 50/50 between City & merchants in the area (their BIA taxes are 35% of their business taxes!!). The first 6 months was pedestrian-only, but opening in October of '73 was hardly an intelligent thing to do, but what else can you expect when BIAs and the City get together to create their utopias? Their pedestrian mall (changed to traffic [thoroughfare] in summer 1974, although buses were always permitted, giving pedestrians a hard time) didn't so much as kill the area as hasten its demise. It was precisely because London East was desperate that they took a gamble - and lost.

Intrinsically, this was not the worst however.

What the mall experiment did to London East however, was draw the whole City's attention towards a dying neighbourhood, and that was the seal of doom. Word of mouth poison like "London East, no way, its dead out there, ---the mall killed it" became widespread. Of course, merchants reeling from lower sales and continuing lower could hardly afford to advertise heavily to reverse the tide.

Source: Downtown London Metro Bulletin, October, 1981 (Page 46)

The pedestrian-only Dundas St. mall that was proposed by the Board of the B.I.A. was originally scheduled for May 23, a week from now. At press time, Random Notes does not know if the closing of traffic from the main [thoroughfare] will be attempted later this summer. This will be decided at the Board meeting on Tuesday, May 12 , covered elsewhere in the Bulletin. At this time, despite the fact that the concept was to go into effect May 23, London Transit officials, City Engineer, City Clerk & City Administrator have not even received a copy of the Laventhol Draft Report (on the closing) which details the plan. Thus, the administrations and thus the elected officials will need about 4 to 6 months to even consider & approve any such proposal. The transit company and most city depts. (Traffic, Engineering) have not yet been approached on the idea. So whether you favour a mall concept or oppose it, you won't see it this year anyway.

Source: Downtown London Metro Bulletin, May 15, 1981. (Page 10) 

THE PAST: CITY HALL'S RECORD OF INTERVENTION:

Centennial Hall:

Built in 1967 at a cost of $1.2 million, this project has cost the London taxpayer between $27,000 and $75,000 each year, totalling over $700,000 up till this year, In 1984, the city taxpayer was forced to pay an additional $750,000 as his 'contribution' to it $2 million renovation. In the meantimes, Centennial Hall continues to be underused and has been regarded as unsatisfactory for performing arts events.

[According to the London 2015 Approved Budget, taxpayers will pay $105,000 to Centennial Hall in 2015, an increase of 4.6% from 2014. City Budget projections are a 64.8% increase from 2016 to 2018. City Hall still wants a 'Performing Arts Centre' built that has been proposed for decades and will cost tens, if not hundreds, of millions of tax dollars.]

London Regional Art Gallery [Museum London]

The London Taxpayer's original 'contribution' for this project was $1 million, which was spent on land at the fork of the Thames River. An additional $6 million came from federal and provincial taxpayers.

When the London Gallery was located at the London Public Library back in 1974, it had an annual budget of $209,000 with an attendance figure of 60,000. Currently, with its annual budget of $1,224,00, last year's attendance figure was 68,000. Thus, a %10 increase in attendance was achieved with a %350 increase (adjusted for inflation) in real costs. In the interim, the Gallery lost hundreds of thousands of (yours) dollars, and was even forced to close for a two-month period to prevent even further losses. And despite these expenditures, both the interior and exterior of the Gallery have been consistently criticized as to their appropriateness to display works of art.

[According to the London 2015 Approved Budget, taxpayers will pay $1,614,000 million to Museum London, an increase of 4.1% from 2014. City Budget projections are a 17.6% increase from 2016 to 2018.]

Talbot Square:

Back in the early 1970's, [sic] London city council decided to expropriate all land between Dundas Street, Talbot Street, Queen's [sic] Avenue, and Ridout Street for an 'urban renewal project' called Talbot Square - a utopian vision of 'job creation', big investment, etc. (sound familiar?), to be created by the building of the hotel and mall complex.

As every London taxpayer should know, this shinning example of downtown regeneration sponsored by 'benevolent' government went completely haywire. After paying more for the land than it was worth, construction was halted, lawsuits were flying, and two years the only visible result of the project was a huge hole in the ground. The land was finally sold to Bell Canada at a $2.5 million loss.

[This location is were the architecturally significant Perrin confectionary factory stood that once employed approximately 500 Londoners. To this author, the City Plan for the area around the former McCormicks factory resembles the failed Talbot Square plan.]

Grand Theatre:

Ostensibly a non-profit corporation (non-profit was right!), London city council has, since 1078, given the corporation a total of $317,000 in capital grants, plus an addition $685,992 in operating grants and tax exemptions. You can add to this figure the emergency $125,00 loan the Grand was given in 1984 to proven the bank from foreclosing on its outstanding loans.

The Grand's budget went from $2 million in 1982-1983 (with box-office revenues of $1.2 million) to a whopping $4.4 million in 1983-1984. Despite grants, subsidies, and $1.5 million revenue received at the box office, the deficit still remained at $1.4 million. Although the artistic director, Robin Phillips, resigned, no one else on the board of directors of the Grand Theatre did, although they were responsible for the disaster.

Centennial Museum and Lawson Museum:

For those who may not know, Centennial Museum is the small odd-shaped building beside the central library [305 Queens Avenue] where the annual library book sale is held each year. Lawson Museum is located on Western Road. Last year, London taxpayers paid $220,569 (and more - printing and administration costs are not included here) for the to museums which had a combined attendance of 15,123. Thus, the subsidized cost per visitor was $14.50!

Other Projects Remember, that in addition to the aforementioned, city council also gives capital grants, operating grants, tax exemptions, etc., annually to various other art and culture groups like the Children's Museum, Orchestra London, R.C.R. [Royal Canadian Regiment] Museum, etc.

[Budweiser Gardens pays no property tax.]

Two other projects worthy of note include Eldon House, which, despite the fact that it charges admission, was subsidized by the city [sic] to the tune of $4.23 per person. In 1983, it was visited by 14,177 people. [According to the London 2015 Approved Budget, taxpayers will pay $263,000 to Eldon House. City Budget projections are a 35.4% increase from 2016 to 2018.]

Source: The London Citizens' Guide To The Tax-Paid Pan-Am Games Bid, by Marc Emery.

My advise is to know the history of the failures City Hall has created over the years, always leaving the taxpayers of London with the bill, so one will be better informed and prepared for the next time a city politician has an 'exciting new idea' for London. (When a politician uses the word "exciting" that should be taken as a warning...)

© Trevor Dailey

I find it interesting sometimes to compare the past and the present. I have my deceased grandfather's Canadian Soldier's Handbook from 1943. It contains a lot of interesting information, but I found the information on Unemployment Insurance and bonds the most interesting for a comparision of 1943 and 2015.

Employment Insurance in 2015. [Unemployment Insurance was changed to Employment Insurance]

Am I eligible for EI regular benefits?

You may be entitled to receive EI regular benefits if you:

are employed in insurable employment; lost your employment through no fault of your own; have been without work and without pay for at least seven consecutive days in the last 52 weeks; have worked for the required number of insurable hours in the last 52 weeks or since the start of your last EI claim, whichever is shorter; are ready, willing, and capable of working each day; and are actively looking for work (you must keep a written record of employers you contact, including when you contacted them).

You may not be entitled to receive EI regular benefits if you:

voluntarily left your employment without just cause; were dismissed for misconduct; or are unemployed because you are directly participating in a labour dispute (strike, lockout, or other type of dispute).

What is the two-week waiting period?

Before you start receiving EI benefits, there are two weeks for which you will not be paid. This is what we call the "waiting period." The waiting period is like the deductible that you must pay for other types of insurance.

You usually serve the waiting period at the very beginning of a benefit period, unless you receive earnings during this two-week period. In that case, the waiting period will start during the first week for which you would otherwise be entitled to benefits.

How much will I get?

We cannot tell you exactly how much you will receive without having processed your application. However, we can tell you that the basic rate for calculating EI benefits is 55% of your average insurable weekly earnings. As of January 1, 2015, the maximum insurable earnings amount is $49,500. This means that you can receive a maximum amount of $524 per week.

For how long will I receive EI benefits?

You may receive EI regular benefits for a period ranging from 14 to 45 weeks. The number of weeks you may receive benefits depends on the unemployment rate in your region and on the number of hours of insurable employment that you accumulated during your qualifying period, which is usually the last 52 weeks before the start date of your claim.

Source: Employment Insurance Regular Benefits

Unemployment Insurance in 1943.

Unemployment Insurance

Under the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1940, employers and the Government [Government no longer contributes] are required to contribute to the Unemployment Insurance fund. If an employee has made contributions for at least 30 weeks and becomes unemployed he can apply to his nearest Unemployment Insurance office, for a subsistence allowance provided he is fit and capable of working but for whom no work is available.

For example, if you have contributed 36¢ per week for 30 weeks, for a total of $10.80, you can obtain as much as $80.40 in six weeks of insurance benefits. If you are steadily employed in insurable employment for five years, you would contribute $93.60 and would be entitled to draw benefit for as much as $748.80 or about $8.00 for every $1.00 you have contributed.

Source: Canadian Soldier's Handbook, 1943.

Investing And Saving in 2015.

The Canada Premium Bond

The Canada Premium Bond (CPB) is the only product available for sale through financial institutions, dealers and Customer Service. It is a safe and secure savings product issued and fully guaranteed by the Government of Canada.

Since 1 August 2012, The Canada Premium Bond can be redeemed at any time during the year. Note that if CPBs are redeemed prior to the anniversary date of issue, interest earned from the last anniversary date up to the date of redemption will be forfeited, and only interest earned up to the last anniversary date of issue will be paid out.

Since November 2012, The Canada Premium Bond has a three-year term to maturity, with interest rates announced for the same period and remaining in effect for that announced period. At the end of the period, new rates are announced by the Minister of Finance based on the prevailing market conditions.

Starting October 2013, a social insurance number (SIN) will be mandatory when purchasing a CPB. For minors who do not have a SIN, the date of birth will be mandatory. As well, direct deposit information is mandatory for Regular Interest Bond purchases.

The Canada Savings Bond

Since November 2012, Canada Savings Bonds (CSBs) are only available through the Payroll Savings Program.

The Canada Savings Bond is a safe and secure savings product issued and fully guaranteed by the Government of Canada. CSBs can be redeemed at any time during the year.

The Canada Savings Bond has a three-year term to maturity, with interest rates announced for one year and remaining in effect for that period. At the end of one year, new rates are announced by the Minister of Finance based on the prevailing market conditions.

[As of November, 2017, Canada Savings Bonds and Canada Premium Bonds are no longer available for purchase.]

Source: Canada Savings Bond Program

Investing And Saving in 1943.

War Savings Certificates And Stamps

This is a very easy and profitable method of saving. You may easily purchase certificates by going to your Paymaster who will make arrangements for an assignment of a portion of your pay to cover the cost. The Government wants to borrow the money from you now to pay for the guns, tanks, shells, etc, which will beat the enemy.

Remember that for every $4.00 you invest in War Savings Certificates now, you get $5.00 at the end of the seven years - guaranteed by the Government of Canada. Save your money for a rainy day.

Source: Canadian Soldier's Handbook, 1943.

© Trevor Dailey

St. Mary's is a about a 40 kilometre drive from of London. I thought there might be work in St. Mary's, so I decided to head north to take a look around. I also took my camera along thinking I might come across a few photo opportunities. My photo interest at this time is trains, and the Goodrich-Exeter (GEXR) Railway is the only freight train service that operates there. Once I left the city of London, I expected an uneventful drive along county roads. It wasn't long before someone was close on my tail.

I don't like to waste the valuable time of a police officer so I try to drive without attracting unwanted law enforcement attention. On the way out of London, I encountered an unmarked Dodge Charger police car. Perhaps the officer was impressed with my by the book lane change a few moments before when the police car was a good distance away in my rearview mirror. Likely not.

I drive a small car. Not by choice, but because it is all the car I can afford. It isn't fast, flashy, or cool looking, but my little 2004 Aveo does its job without complaint. Small cars get no respect on the roads especially outside of the city. 

Since I know the police tend not to go after someone 'keeping up with traffic' my speed was approximately 10 km over the posted limit, according to my (inaccurate) speedometer, to try to do just that. Of course, that wasn't fast enough for the other drivers who raced by me after spending some time tailing me. There were transport trucks, schools busses, and even a horse drawn buggy that I saw on the road, but no matter. Travelling at an estimated 120 km/h or 140 km/h in the 80 km/h and 90 km/h posted speed limit zones for certain drivers was just fine with them. Not a cop in sight. Two drivers passed me aggressively at the bottom of a steep hill with a solid lane dividing line. If that one oncoming transport truck had been just a few seconds earlier coming over that hill…. One day I am going to get a video camera for my car. It is not going to be a case of he/she said and I say. It is going to be what the camera says. End of story. 

St. Marys looked to me like a nice small town with a strong manufacturing economy. There appears to be a handful of factories operating as one drives into town. Except for the former Dana Canada plant that closed years ago. That was bought by Green Arc Tire Manufacturing around 2013 with lots of big press in the media about how Green Arc was going to employ 340 people starting in February 2014 when the new winter remoulded tire factory was up and running. I don't know exactly what the problem is, maybe it is the reported Ontario government red tape, but Green Arc has yet to produce a single tire. The plant isn't operating, and it looks like a closed factory from the outside. Only a small sign, and two cars in the parking lot of this giant $37 million plant. They have my résumé "on file".

There wasn't anywhere for me to park my car and get out to take photos, except for a park that I found beside James Street next to the rail tracks where there was  VIA Rail passenger car 8138 sitting on the tracks that caught my attention. This was after someone repeatedly honked at me for pausing at the side of a quiet road while I looked for a photo spot. Even in a lovely small town like St. Marys there is still at one 'Alpha Hotel' around who is able to find me. I live in the big city with some of the worst drivers in Canada. Rude honking at me isn't going to intimidate me, nor is honking at me going to get my attention in any good way. I ignored him and his honking. He drove around me in a fit of petty annoyance. 

I don't know exactly why the VIA Rail passenger car 8138 was there on the side track in St. Marys, but I think it made for some good photos. I had wanted a train to come by, and although I thought I heard a train whistle, nothing came along. Had a train come along, I had a great spot to take some train photos. 

After a couple of hours, I decided to return home. The return home drive was similar to the drive to St. Marys. Go figure.

© Trevor Dailey 

There are many special accommodations that are required by law for the handicapped. From the removal of 'barriers' to the 'all inclusive' design of everything around us.

The requirements of designated parking spots, handrails, ramps, the banning of door knobs, the list goes on. But it doesn't seem to always have been like this, as this old film shows:

No Help Wanted

Have your door knobs been banned by the government yet?

Spinal Cord Injury Alberta

© Trevor Dailey

Hello. Come in. Sit down.

Thank you.

You are interested in working here?

Yes I am. Very much so.

Good. We are looking for people. You're looking for permanent work?

Yes I am.

Your resume says you have done all temporary work. I see a lot of long gaps in between your jobs. Why is that?

I did those jobs because I want to work, and I will do a job that I am offered. Those jobs I accepted I worked hard at even though they were only temporary. My objective is to build to a permanent job.

I see. You've been working toward that goal for a while now? Just judging by your age. You don't have to tell me, but I am guessing you are now close to forty? Most people by your age have build up a skill set, and I'm not seeing that here. Unskilled work. These are the types of jobs we hire young students for. You don't have any issues that keep you from holding down a job, do you?

No. I don't believe there is any shame in having a job. I work...

Ok. Your education. It says "General Arts and Science". What is that?

It is also known as a "Liberal Arts" education.

Why isn't it called that?

I don't know.

It is a genuine diploma?

Yes. I have a copy with me if...

I'm just asking because an "Arts" and "Science" diploma sounds so contradictory. I mean, it's like socialism and capitalism. They are the opposite things. They don't go together. How long did it take you to get this diploma?

Two years. I graduated with honours on the...

With honours?

Yes. The Dean's list. I also have a copy...

Really? Why did you decide on this diploma? Why not take something realistic?

My education has taught me how to think how to apply the lessons that I learned to the world of work. I just need the oportunity to...

Ok, ok. You can save the speech. I don't have the time right now. How much did this diploma cost you? If don't mind me asking?

About $20,000.

Are you serious?

Yes. I had a student loan. 

You spent that much?

Yes. And I paid the debt off myself. It took me about 10 years, but I worked whenever I could, and I paid off my debt. I think that shows that I...

Doing jobs like washing cars for years? These are the only types of jobs you did? 

Yes. I want to work.

Alright. Thank you for coming in. Here. Don't forget to take your resume with you. You can find you own way out, right?

Yes. Thank you.

© Trevor Dailey

Earthworm

Out in my rubber boots
Splashing in the rain
Jumping in puddles
Getting all wet
When I came across an earthworm
On the sidewalk that had lost its way

I could have stepped on it
Or kicked it to the curb
I could have dissected it
Anatomized without a word
But I stopped and stared
At this lonely worm
And a thought came over me

I picked it up
Raised it to my face
It wriggled
I jiggled
It twisted
I turned
We squirmed

Oh earthworm what a sight you are!
Held here between my finger tips
Perhaps I will kiss you
Just to feel you upon my lips!

It wasn’t that the rain had soaked my dress
It wasn't that one earthworm I brought home
It wasn’t that single earthworm I had alone
It was the writhing handfuls of all the rest

© Trevor Dailey

Just Right show 391 – The allure of the irrational / Contradiction / Superstition discussed how it seems many people today think, or don't think. There seems to be so much of the later. Many more examples can be pointed to, but I thought of a couple after I bought some sweet potatoes and rutabagas at the grocery store.

I am not sure where the sweet potatoes and rutabagas I bought came from, but they certainly were not 'local'. The price was affordable to me, and the quality was to my standards. But since the sweet potatoes and rutabagas were not 'local' by some twisted thinking I did something wrong by buying them. I don't buy anything because it is 'local'. Quality food at a fair price is what I want. I don't care where it comes from.

There are a few reasons why humans have been trading with each other for thousands of years, and the best reason is honest trade benefits both parties. Closed markets and protectionism (like Canada's so-called 'Dairy Cartel' which is buying local on a massive scale) benefits only one party. The sweet potatoes and rutabagas were not 'organic' either.

'Organic', Kosher, and Halal are all similar to me. They are based in religion, and are not better for you nutritionally, or safer for you than other foods. 'Organic' is the Kosher and Halal of the environmentalist's religion. The difference is the Jews and Muslims choose to eat their food prepared to their religious beliefs, but they do not try to force everyone else to eat the same way they eat as the environmental movement is determined to do when it comes to 'organic' food.

Not all Jews eat Kosher, and not all Muslims eat Halal, but if you don't eat 'organic' you can't be an environmentalist because, according to the self-righteous of them, you are destroying nature. I think, and eat, for myself. 

© Trevor Dailey

London, Ontario, Canada.

One hears many explainations why London is also called, "The Forest City". Many are incorrect. Here is the origin of the name, "The Forest City"

A line in a previous part of this paper suggests a closing paragraph. I said there that a traveller coming to London from the east suddenly found himself in a little clearing in the forest. That was for many years a characteristic of the place; and was the origin of the familiar name of "The Forest City." Some people to-day have the belief that the name was given it on account of the number of trees on its streets. But it was so-called long before any of those trees were planted. It was essentially a forest town. Standing at the intersection of two streets, whichever way the eye was turned the vista was closed by the dense forest. As the country around was gradually cleared of its super-abundant woods, far-seeing citizens introduced the custom of planting trees along the sides of our streets and avenues; and for once, at least, a municipal council was found ready to spend money, the results of which would not be apparent the same year. So, from the one cause or the other, London has always been justly entitled to the name of "Forest City."

Source: Pioneer Days In London, by A. T, Campbell (1921) Page 36.

The reason for the name London is uncertain despite what some write on the Internet about it. It appears Governor Simcoe chose the name "New London", but it is not certain why he did. Perhaps the answer is in an archived document. 

The name "London" was connected with this locality at an early period in history. At first it was only a name on paper applied by Governor Simcoe to the site which he proposed to build a town. Then it was more definately attached to a section which we now know as London Township. 

Source: Pioneer Days In London, by A. T, Campbell (1921) Page 22. 

© Trevor Dailey 

Since 2014, I have owned a Nikon D3200 camera. This is my first 'professional' type camera. In the time I have owned my camera I have taken hundreds of photographs. Some are experimental, just for fun, or have a purpose. The camera is perfect for my current level of photography, but it has lots of room for me as I learn and grow with my photography. Having access to Lens Lenders is also a benefit. A question I have thought about is what type of photographer am I?

Judging by what I take photos of and in what situations I would probably describe myself as a 'historical' photographer. This means to me that I like to take photos to document events.

At my former place of work I took many photos related to the business. While not a perfect record any person looking at my photos long after what is there today is gone will have some information on what was there, and what we did there. A glimpse into what the business was about. Perhaps it will provide information to someone that I never thought would be important to someone.

It could be supposed that all photographers are this 'historical' type of photographer simply by what photography is. A photo is a record. However, I mostly take photos with the intention of historical preservation, so I might be a little different. Not that I expect people to be looking at my photos 100 years after I am gone, but if they do, I want my photos to be a historical record.

While many of my photos are the 'historical' type, many others are simply experimental that I delete soon after taking them. I learn best through experiment. Still other photos I take are just for fun that likely will never mean anything to anyone except me. While I am nowhere near being an expert photographer, I look forward to taking many hundreds more photos with my camera. I really just enjoy taking photos. 

© Trevor Dailey

Video: Military Police Photography (1965)

Historical buildings should be restored, maintained, and persevered. This is my personal opinion. Some may agree or disagree with my opinion. That is fine. Disagreement with my opinion of historical buildings does not bother me much. It is commonly when there is agreement with my opinion of historical buildings that my frustration grows for a few reasons.

In my city of London (Canada) there are a number of historical groups that, like me, wish to see historical buildings saved and not demolished. On this we agree, but we depart in agreement on how to achieve this goal.

Some wish to have the municipal government expropriate the historical property in order to 'save it' without compensation to the owner. The municipality may expropriate property for a variety of reasons, but to expropriate private property is always immoral. After a historical property is expropriated there is the other issue of tax money being used for the historical property. This is also immoral. Another method of 'saving' a historical building by government is similar to expropriation.

Some historical property the City owns or regulates is sold to a private owner with conditions. These conditions usually mean the new owner must abide by a sales agreement, bylaws, or other city regulations, that guarantees the interests of the City come before the interests of the property owner. This may include historical structures on the property must be maintained to a certain standard set by the City, or the property owner must be granted permission from the City prior to any redevelopment of the property.

The private property owner is never reimbursed for the expenses of restoration and preservation of the historical property, nor is the property owner ever granted a freeze or lowering of the municipal property taxes to help with the expenses. In a situation like this the property owner may rightly feel like a tenant of the City. The method of 'saving' historical buildings by denying property rights seems to be preferred by some local historical groups.

Many times I have come across some local historical group's webpage, usually a Facebook page, that posts some historical concern the group is facing. There is a list of the email and Twitter address of local city politicians with encouragement for people to send messages to the politicians to get the politicians to vote for or against a motion in order to 'save' historical buildings. I always look for the 'donate' button, or information on where I can donate money to help fund the buying or restoration of a historical building. It is never there. These groups do not appear to have any interest in raising their own money to save historical buildings. They only seem interested in 'activism' of their 'cause'. In my opinion, there are a better ways to save a historical building.

When the historical building is for sale the building's historical significance could be communicated to all interested buyers. This would be the choice of the property owner. A third party could also share the historical significance of a property that could be accessed by any individual interested in the historical value of a property. Buyers with an interest in the restoration and preservation of historical buildings will seek this type of property out, and it is of benefit if the historical information is easily available.

Groups or individuals interested in the preservation of historical property should buy the property with their own money. I am certain there are many individuals, and groups of individuals, that are willing to donate or invest their money into the purchase of historical property. If the full purchase of a historical property is not the best option then the raising of money for the restoration of the historical property could be done. The later might be done in a situation where the property owners wishes to restore the historical property, but does not have the necessary funding to do so.

Those wanting to see historical property saved must act with personal responsibility and risk to save historical property. They must not force or expect others to do it for them. As much as it pains me to see a historical building demolished, property rights are important. One must have the right to do almost whatever one wants to with one's property. The right to demolish a historical building one owns, and the right to preserve a historical building one owns must be equal.  

© Trevor Dailey