LETTERS: Vested interests

Editor:

Re: Criticism over OCP panelists, Oct. 2

Editor:

Re: Criticism over OCP panelists, Oct. 2

Thank goodness there are residents of White Rock that have the ability to do proper research and bring to light such a flawed selection process for such an important committee.

I do not know the actual mandate for the OCP Working Group, but I am certain their deliberations will be quoted and accepted by the pro-development city council members.

There is an obvious agenda of high density outside the city core, so when ‘friends’ – developers/donators – to the mayor and council members are selected to a working group, the agenda has a much better opportunity to succeed.

You would think that the minimum standard for selection to any type of working group that has an influence on the OCP of White Rock would be residency in the community!

The vast majority – as evidenced by a recent PAN online question – of White Rock residents are opposed to this high-density agenda and their voices deserve to be heard.

George Scott, White Rock

• • •

As a brand-new resident to the area, I read your story about appointments to a mayor’s advisory committee for community planning with both amusement and concern.

Seems the city is appointing people who are ‘connected’ in the worst possible sense of the word.

Never ever allow anyone in the real-estate business to be involved in any planning, other than when they appear before council in the public forum, and I will tell you why.

Many years ago, I visited Salt Spring Island; I did again just last year.

On the recent trip we came across some subdivisions that could be in Richmond. They looked totally out of place and ugly.

Turns out the people had elected members of the real estate business and they pushed the concept into play and got their own way.

Big mistake, in my view. But so is appointing people to public committees that make recommendations to politicians.

Never appoint people to boards who have a vested interest, as in never because you will not get an unbiased view, not when they can benefit financially from decisions that allows them direct benefits.

It makes no sense to do so.

Mark Tyson, Surrey