LETTERS: Future of White Rock

LETTERS: Future of White Rock

Editor: Re: They serve at our pleasure , Aug. 4 letters.

Editor:

Re: They serve at our pleasure, Aug. 4 letters.

I read with interest all of the recent letters from people venting their frustrations towards the City of White Rock, and with particular interest to the Aug. 4 letter from Barry Gaudin, which was essentially a call to arms.

I couldn’t agree more with the frustrated writers, and there are a lot more people out there who are fed up with the status quo than the cronies at city hall probably realize. I am certainly unhappy with how I see my tax dollars being spent.

A parkade? Bigger cities than this roadside attraction don’t have parkades like the one being put forward by council.

I have long questioned whether the city actually makes a decent living off parking revenues, or if it all gets eaten up by salaries and benefits, supplies and amortization of expenses to enforce parking regulations and hand out tickets.

Do away with pay parking, get rid of the ‘meter maids’ and see if we don’t break even on that front, while attracting more visitors as a happy side-effect. A parkade won’t bring more visitors.

How much is it costing us to re-invent White Rock’s logo? It’s a city named after a geological hunk of earth that someone painted. Get over it. Changing the logo won’t bring more visitors. What I am truly wondering about, though, is what White Rock would look like if Surrey took it back.

Would Surrey gobble us up and build casinos, highrises and universities, or would White Rock maintain its identity and move in a better direction than our current mayor and council is taking us? Would our taxes finally become more reasonable, would someone in city hall finally listen to the input of the people who pay their wages, or would we just trade the devil we know?

Gaudin writes about a referendum and an “invite only” meeting. How do I get invited?

B. Jakob, White Rock