Opposition

This week's Summerland Review had three more letters opposed to the current OCP draft and plans for aggressive growth in Summerland's future. It makes me wonder if there's anyone out there who supports the kind of growth proposed by the second draft -- if they're out there, why aren't they writing in?

Catherine McDougall from the Darke Lake Watershed Protection Alliance raised some interesting questions about the potential for conflicts with First Nations land claims as well as concerns about water and infrastructure costs. Gordon Northcote's letter was articulated well -- I thought that this point was worth repeating:

The original group of stakeholders on the original committee were from a wide group of citizens. Although their recommendations may not have coincided with the high rate of growth the council appears to want, their plan allowed for a more reasonable rate of growth. In my opinion, they sensibly suggested that we put as much growth into infilling the present facilities (sewer, water, etc.) first before developing new areas that will require further expansion and thus more expense to taxpayers. Whatever developers say otherwise, new development almost invariably costs everyone more in the long run.

I've received a few e-mails along similar lines since word started getting out about this site, and it makes me very curious. If the stakeholder's committee was formed by council in the first place, why would they ignore (or drastically modify) the committee's recommendations for the most important parts of the OCP (ALR land and the rate of growth)? What instructions did they give the consultants after reviewing the first draft? These might be great questions to ask at the open house on the 22nd.