The Covered Market has been a primary feature in Oxford civic life for many years.

Now there is serious unrest in the market since the council is putting up the traders' rents by extortionate rates and giving little or no service to the tenants.

Based on numerous years' experience and a built-in scepticism, I find that when this situation exists, the landlord no longer wants tenants in the property.

How could that be? Surely anyone with commercial property to let would want tenants, wouldn't they?

Enter scepticism.

Could it be that there's some mammoth developer in the wings or even the shadows with some grandiose plan for a hypermarket, supercasino, or something else that would produce lots of cash while continuing the character erosion of this fine and ancient city?

We insist on reducing everything to its lowest common denominator - how much money is it worth?

We've been quite successful at raising the figure, while the value of our life experience continues to erode with the character of the city.

We've already sold out the architectural heritage.

The history of the canal is just words on a page. The canal is now a sluice between brick and concrete, with old trees being felled at a criminal rate.

So why should the Covered Market be spared?

EMMETT SCHLUETER, Jericho, Oxford