LETTERS: Not merely inconvenience

LETTERS: Not merely inconvenience

Editor: Re: Voters didn't agree with philosophy: Lawrence, Oct. 26.

Editor:

Re: Voters didn’t agree with philosophy: Lawrence, Oct. 26.

I read with interest the interview that outgoing White Rock councillor Bill Lawrence gave the PAN because he was the only ex-member of our local government that had the decency to do so. Talk about sore losers.

Anyway, I would like to say that while Lawrence may be somewhat correct in saying that the constituents rejected the White Rock Coalition because of the “inconveniences posed by the construction and the changes in bus routes” – as well as too much change all at once – it is much more than that.

He also said the city’s approach was like doing a home reno – which is better done all at once, with the homeowner moving out while it gets done. We live here, we can’t just move out while our little city is demolished and rebuilt.

People can only tolerate so much. When project after project gets pushed through while ignoring the general consensus of the people who pay for the projects as well as the wages of the council who approves it, then there will be consequences.

Building a multi-million-dollar parkade that was opposed by so many and makes no fiscal sense. Not addressing the water issue or considering hooking into GVRD, all while not disclosing purchasing costs. Un-announcedly ripping out trees at 4 a.m. so that nobody would see until it was too late. Infuriating our neighbours at Semiahmoo First Nation for prideful pettiness. Tearing out the main street with no warning to businesses or residents. Rebuilding our waterfront and disrupting businesses there for what seems like an eternity for such a small project. Closing the council doors to the public and eliminating our option to question council. I am certain there are things I am forgetting, but those are the real reasons the Coalition got the boot, and rightly so.

We feel like you’ve destroyed the charm of our little city and turned it into another hollow haven for investment housing. You were supposed to work for the people, for the city, not for your own glory or for the developers, and your council and mayor failed at that task.

To suggest that we, as voters, are so fickle that a few weeks of “inconvenience” would lead us to oust the current council is a small-minded view of the situation and I expect better from someone as intelligent as Lawrence.

I sincerely hope this new council, with two good incumbents, will take this city in a more reasonable direction that is acceptable to the people who live, work and vote here.

B. Jakob, White Rock

Peace Arch News