Letters to the Editor for the week of March 8th, 2012 

Not a waster of tax dollars

click to enlarge opinion_letters1.jpg

Page 2 of 7

The purchase agreement also mentioned that buyers, "may experience dust, noise and odour from the operation." Unlike Cheryl, many people have experienced these things but there was no mention of the toxins we "may" experience from the operation.

I did not forget the contract I signed, as Cheryl implied, as I researched the purchase with the province and was told officially that the plant was a "temporary portable asphalt plant" and shame on me for believing temporary and portable might mean it would move after the Olympic build up.

Planners at the RMOW stated on the record, pre-purchase, that the plant was not zoned for its location and also, just before our second deposits were put down, that the majority of council directed the plant be moved by June 1, 2010, so there was logically an assumption that the negotiations to move the plant were going to be successful. Who would think that a community such as ours would settle for anything less, so my lovely wife and I eagerly laid down our money.

How, as Cheryl has stated, "if it bothered you so much you could have walked away," could we have known it would bother us when we were allowed severely limited access to the site pre purchase? How were buyers expected to know before November 2009 a plant was there when the head community planner himself didn't know it was there, as has been reported widely in the media? No mention of the plant to council in 2004 when deciding where to put this legacy. No mention anywhere of the plants existence in the Legacy Olympic Neighbourhood report binder, or at any of the open house presentations.

As for mine and the community's "complaining" — speaking up stopped $400,000 of taxpayers' money being spent by the RMOW on a proposed upgrade of a very old plant, and it also has saved well over $100,000 and will continue to save in the future, as paving contracts have finally gone to tender on asphalt, rather than as the sole-source contacts of the past for the first time in 30 years.

I only respond to this letter as Cheryl specifically mentioned my name. My plan Cheryl, after the announcement last week that there would be a new course of action and no appeal, was to stay involved in the community I love, but recommend that due to a busy life and our first child coming in two weeks to nominate someone else as spokesperson.

I thank Cheryl for bringing her opinion to the public discussion as it shows that some are still not fully informed in the community even after years of intensive media coverage on this topic, and her letter will hopefully contribute to a more informed community.

© 1994-2019 Pique Publishing Inc., Glacier Community Media

- Website powered by Foundation