Editor:
Mission may now apply to become the “City of Mission” (The Mission Record, Oct. 18th edition), as only 422 qualified eligible electors – or 1.47 per cent – opposed reclassification of Mission as a city, instead of a district.
Mayor Pam Alexis acknowledges the vast majority – that is, the rest of Mission’s eligible voters – support the council’s vision for moving forward.
Such a presumption, assuming the “vast majority” actually read The Record with critical interpretation. But the question remains: What does “forward” mean? Endless development?
Indeed, this demonstrates that “negative option billing” is a devious, misleading and unethical (although legal) process. It is most certainly dishonourable, with zero moral authority.
This proposal should have been fully open as part of an election platform or the council could have included a proposal form with the annual property tax notice at no extra cost to the taxpayers.
Why was voting by email not allowed, with appropriate security precautions which would have reduced the carbon footprint of 422 voters, especially the rural residents?
The whole exercise definitely slid under the radar, with the process designed to deceive and be obscured from scrutiny and accountability.
If this is for the “future,” just what was/is the rush to have the reclassification achieved before the next election?
Jeanette Smith
Mission
