Yellowknife's city council made the right decision by putting off the decision to buy the city's power distribution system until 2001.

When rumblings of the possible purchase surfaced in March, we supported the idea, if a majority of residents would see lower rates as a result. However, we began to get nervous soon after, with amounts such as $250,000 and words such as lawsuit and arbitration being bandied about by the city and Northland Utilities, which currently owns the equipment that brings power into our homes.

Red flags began waving when we were told there was a huge discrepancy between what Northland said the utility was worth -- more than $25 million -- and what the city said it was worth -- less than $20 million.

Further, at a city council committee meeting last week, a lawyer acting on behalf of the city said Northland was contemplating legal action that would, if successful, wipe out most if not all savings residents would receive even if the city was successful in its purchasing bid.

There's no doubt in our minds that the city and Mayor Dave Lovell had nothing but the best intentions when they embarked on this exercise. It has been clear through the entire process that there are certainly some benefits city residents could receive from a city-run utility.

However, Northland is rightly trying to protect its substantial investment while delivering to residents the best service it can. It is also a great corporate citizen and let's not forget that its employees must have gone through hell over the last few months wondering if their jobs would be secure if the city was successful in a takeover bid.

City council did the only thing it really could do in this situation -- back off for now, watch and wait and bring it up again at the next appropriate time for reassessment, which will be in about two and a half years.

Otherwise we could have had a very ugly situation in which nobody emerged the winner and that wouldn't have benefited Yellowknife residents in the least.

We are not the first to object to the idea of a curfew for the city youth. Mayor Dave Lovell and a youth group have already pointed out that trying to keep the bad kids off the street will accomplish little if the goal is a reduction in violence.

But because the idea seems so popular, it's worth trouncing once again. If someone bent on doing bodily harm isn't intimidated by the threat of jail, a curfew is unlikely to scare them off. Curfews address the symptoms, not the disease -- troubled youth.

Before this idea goes any further, let's work on helping those few who need help, rather than making life difficult for the rest of the community.

Raising a child, it would seem, has never been tougher. What parent in the city doesn't wish he or she could have an extra set of eyes -- or a closed-circuit videocamera -- to monitor their child's every move?

It's reassuring, then, to know that the city's day-care workers and elementary school-teachers are being trained in the proper procedures to make sure playgrounds are as safe as possible.

Anything that let parents breathe easier, even just a little bit, is a good idea. And it won't be costing much, since the trainers -- firefighters -- are already on the public payroll. Peace of mind may never be complete for a parent, but we're sure they'll appreciate the effort.