Editor:
Re: Absolutely no reason to resign: mayor, Oct. 7.
This issue is now clear as mud.
I would hope we would see more open, accountable, and transparent governance in White Rock.
In all levels of the public service, there has long been a culture of clarity and plain language with respect to communication and written documents. If something can’t be explained at a Grade 9 level of education, you need to work at making it absolutely understandable.
This goes not only for public servants but also the legal profession.
It is my perspective that either Mayor Wayne Baldwin misinterpreted the legal advice, or the legal advice provided was possibly invalid.
Hence, there are three options:
1. Obtain independent legal advice on the legal opinion provided to council as to its validity/clarity;
2. If the opinion was incorrect, or not clear to the layperson, don’t use that lawyer again and explain to citizens how it was easily misread;
3. Resign/dismiss if the mayor clearly misinterpreted, whatever his intent in doing so.
Perhaps the city manager could be called upon for his understanding of this matter, co-ordinate the legal review so that the issue is depoliticized, and thus provide clarity to White Rock citizens?
It’s apparent that confidence must be restored.
John Mackintosh, Surrey
• • •
Because the White Rock mayor expresses population growth targets for the city he represents that comply with White Rock’s legal obligations under the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy (RGS), is this a reasonable basis for panic in the streets, public insurrection and mass protests?
Similarly, because several companies receive permission to conduct public meetings regarding proposed residential/commercial developments, is this a reasonable basis for members of the public to allege that the mayor has “breached the public trust” and should resign?
Absolutely not! And persons who would allege otherwise are either corrupt or unforgivably ignorant!
While it is true that Metro Vancouver’s RGS does not empower Metro to, in an unfettered manner, dictate to White Rock what its future population targets will be, it is also true that White Rock is not legally allowed to choose population growth targets – or allow population growth to occur – that conflicts with targets delineated in Metro’s RGS.
Responsible persons who are truly concerned about and working for the best interests of all White Rock residents would be attempting to have city hall end its decade-long negligent malpractice of not ever evaluating and not ever publicly reporting on objectives contained within White Rock’s current OCP and the city’s other multi-year foundational plans. This instead of staging febrile, junior high-school-type stunts- based on unethical, dishonest, self-serving pretexts…
The only real threat to White Rock and its future are the city-council-wannabees that, for the last several months, have been attempting to mislead and manipulate residents, business owners and others into believing that there are justifiable reasons for demanding that White Rock’s mayor should resign.
Roderick V. Louis, White Rock
• • •
Re: In a word: statesmanlike, Oct. 9 editorial.
A masterpiece!
If only the mayor could live up to it.
Gerry Houlden, White Rock