Editor:
Re: City under fire for entranceway plan, July 22.
Your story belongs on the editorial page.
Its intent is not to faithfully record the events of the public meeting; rather it presents White Rock Coun. Al Campbell’s and Mayor Wayne Baldwin’s defensive post-meeting reactions in the subtitle (“Councillor critical of challenges to ‘expert opinion with guesswork’”) and front-page paragraphs. Details of public opinions expressed at the meeting do not appear until near the end on page 4.
Are we to hope the forthcoming ‘independent’ engineer and arbourist reports will be free of city influences?
There were at least 150 people in opposition at the meeting, not 60.
Why should the business community’s opinion rank higher than those of the tax-paying public? This is the entrance to the city, not just to the business community.
Johnston Road landlords have not, in general, beautified their properties.
Road and sidewalk work will have to be redone when redevelopment occurs, at public expense.
Conspicuously absent from the article are several poignant and informed questions from the public. What safety studies warrant doubling the driving lanes/widening the sidewalks? ICBC’s claims information is 13 years old. Why were the roads, sidewalks and trees installed the way they were 40 years ago?
We still don’t know how far down the infrastructure is or why the curb side is higher than the sidewalks. Background information was not presented.
The city is committed to many provincial/national environmental programs, such as “the carbon footprint,” which are ignored in this city proposal.
At the public meeting and follow-up task force meeting, the city admitted that the budget has already been virtually depleted, with $30,000 having been spent to develop detailed roadwork proposals before the public was consulted.
Should council, staff and the business community dictate works projects and policy in this fashion?
Denise Grant & Barry Belec, White Rock