Editor:
I’m responding to a letter (“More pressing matters”) and your Feb. 13 story (“Putting a price on nature”).
If you want to live in an overly sanitized and strictly regulated city, that’s your prerogative, but one shouldn’t presume that the people in the towns along the Coast will welcome changes that would forever alter and diminish or financially quantify the natural environment.
The ideas and activities promoted in these two recent pieces make me alarmed for the future of our natural surroundings and, not incidentally, make me brace for the additional municipal taxes that would be required to support their implementation.
I can’t believe it’s just “older area residents” who decry the taming of what’s wild about the Coast, but I’m certain the majority of locals and visitors of all ages are attracted to the Sunshine Coast and the natural surrounding area for what it is, as is. Rather than pave paradise, citizens and their municipal leaders should pursue and support policies that contribute to the local wilderness-factor that’s both treasured and irreplaceable.
Having said that, the closing paragraph of the article reporting Gibsons council’s decision to undertake a natural assets assessment appears to pave the way to attaching a monetary value to what’s not a commodity. I can’t even comprehend what’s meant by “the value of services provided by natural assets” and fear for the taxpayer for the consequences, whether intended or not.
More paved sidewalks and street lights, interpretive signage and compulsive trail grooming do nothing to enhance the naturalness of our surroundings; rather, they all detract from the essential benefit of living and visiting here — being closer to nature along with its uneven ground, dark nights and other petty inconveniences.
I believe movements to citify the Sunshine Coast should be met with hearty opposition.
Jane Hopkins, Gibsons
