To the Editor
I found your April 26 headline “RDOS wades into national park debate” a bit misleading. I do not interpret the motions as asking whether or not the directors were for or against the proposal, even if during debate some directors expressed their neutrality, support, opposition or sat on the fence.
As I interpret it, the RDOS board debated a three point motion:
1. “The Province of B.C. re-engage in formal discussions with the Government of Canada re the proposed South Okanagan National Park.”
Requesting the province to re-engage with the federal government so a process can be completed seems to be a reasonable approach. How can any of us make a rational decision as to whether or not a national park in the area would benefit, first, the natural landscape and all that depend on it, and second, the Similkameen/South Okanagan communities that surround the proposal. Surely this is a reasonable approach.
2. “That the Regional District Okanagan Similkameen be briefed on the results of the Feasibility Study Report that was submitted to the province December 2010 and that the province release it to the public.”
Surely this is a reasonable request; how can any board member make an informed stand for or against the proposal if they are not privy to the information in the study? How can the residents and business people make a truly informed decision? How can we ever know if we are passing up on a one time opportunity or whether we should “battle the proposal to the end?” How can we intelligently debate the information in the Feasibility Study Report if we do not know the contents of the report? Is it not reasonable that the public should have access to a report about a proposal that may have a major impact (both positive and negative) on the South Okanagan Similkameen? The public paid for the report and should have access to it.
3. That the Regional District Okanagan Similkameen be briefed during and at the completion of these formal talks re the national park. Again, this seems a very reasonable approach and logically follows #1 and #2.
Perhaps I am missing it, but I do not I see an implied or real request for commitment by the board either for or against the park. Simply a request for information!
The real issue here is the provincial government has yet again downloaded its responsibilities onto local government by passing a controversial issue onto local government while giving the appearance of having listened to the “majority” of local residents. Some may interpret this as “buying” votes for the next election.
The national park proposal is not really in the RDOS domain. Crown Lands are under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and in some cases, federal government. I applaud the RDOS for taking the approach it has and sincerely hope that as a result we can all be privy to the information in the Feasibility Study Report.
Respectfully, Lee McFadyen,Cawston
