LETTERS: Other views on the ‘hump’

Editor:

Re: We should have had a bluff plan: Baldwin, June 3; Grateful for ocean eyeline, June 3 letters.

Editor:

Re: We should have had a bluff plan: Baldwin, June 3.

The public wasn’t invited to comment prior to the city’s interference with, and denuding of, the ‘hump’.

Too bad. I’d have humbly offered a warning about fiddling around with hillsides.

We once bought a house on the top of a cliff in White Rock, the land behind it having slid away into the sea 30 years before.

A practicing geologist/professor at UBC was hired to examine the site for stability.

His report had heavy emphasis on safety: “Never ever interfere with the toe of a slope or what grows upon it, as this would be courting disaster.”

While it’s appreciated that the mayor admits there should have been a plan for the ‘hump’, his remarks show why. There was no plan “because we didn’t know what the ground was like” and “now that the vegetation has been removed, engineers are able to see the slope more clearly.”

He thinks that makes “a lot of sense in terms of planning and designing” as he wants to landscape it!

It would have made more sense to leave the thing alone. The city’s chief engineer says the retaining walls will be inspected and repaired and the hillside will be replanted to “improve stability.”

Good grief! Maybe the whole thing was a bad dream or someone’s ill-considered make-work project.

Mary Garner, White Rock

• • •

Re: Grateful for ocean eyeline, June 3 letters.

I think it’s just lovely that letter-writer John P. (Jack) Scott’s view has been improved, in his opinion, but I must question just where all these cars that previously rushed by the ‘hump’ are now stopping to admire this view. Is it on the roadway? Well, that’s not a very good idea, is it?

I guess what I am actually questioning is the assertion that many inhabitants of these cars are suddenly so breath-taken by the view that they simply must immediately stop their cars and photograph it.

Before the ‘hump’ clearing, I often walked the ‘hump’ and enjoyed the lovely view, including the trees. There were many spots where one could clearly see the water. Obviously, one of those wasn’t where Mr. Scott’s window faced. But, any of those were places where these suddenly enthralled cars could have stopped to admire.

Oddly, I never once saw this happening.

I feel the headline to Scott’s letter says it all. This is everything to do with his view and nothing to do with anyone or anything else.

Many of us who have lived here even longer are not impressed with what has happened to our lovely ‘hump’ and the entire beach ambience.

We find it ugly and depressing.

Jane Mantle, White Rock