I am voting yes on March 8 after attending several information sessions regarding the Green Municipal Fund financing opportunity.
I'm voting yes because I now understand how this funding option benefits both present and future taxpayers.
I suspect that many who will vote yes will be doing so from an informed position, and my hope is that any of those who may still vote no can at least claim the same.
Mrs. and Mr. Pap (letter of Feb. 28), you sound as though your vote is being cast based on your own myopic opinion, not facts or information. You say this council "failed to act responsibly both fiscally and morally." However, this statement is, in my opinion, completely proven false specifically with the new funding opportunity being presented, as it is both fiscally and morally a better funding option.
Mr. Pruden and Mr. Goudie (letter of Feb. 28), you are absolutely correct that there is no 'need' for the $7.4 million loan, as the project will be completed without such funding; however, your position is like equating not needing a bridge over a river simply because we can all swim. No, the $7.4 million loan is not 'needed' in that it is not the only option; however, it is a better option than what was available initially. As for your concern that this option "will handcuff the next mayor and council," I believe it will do just the opposite by leaving a larger portion of reserves untouched, as the new financing costs can be serviced by the existing user fees, and more so as new users are added to the system.
This funding option, although not the only option, helps sustain a long-term vision and is a sound reason to vote yes.
Mike Fawcus, Sechelt
© Coast Reporter