Gibsons resident Scott Russell brought a petition with over 1,000 signatures to council on July 28, advocating that the George Hotel and Residences project move forward in its current design.
“We went door to door and when you do that in any town you really get a feel for the temperature of the community, and boy did we hear it,” Russell said. “A lot of positive stuff, a lot of different reactions. One 93-year-old pioneer of Gibsons told us, ‘I want to see the George built for future generations so that the Town doesn’t go backwards.’”
Russell said he discovered through polling the community that many Gibsons residents are confused about the George project.
“We did find a lot of confused residents. One person told us, ‘We voted, why are we doing this again?’ Another said, ‘What are these councillors doing?’ And another said, ‘We understood the George was going ahead, so what’s happening?’ That was a common refrain, and a little disturbing.”
The petition to move the George forward received 1,051 signatures.
“It’s presented to remind you of the wishes of the often silent and moderate majority who voted for economic progress and stability, as well as job opportunities for young families and our youth,” Russell said, “the majority who voted for the Town to move forward, not backwards.”
Russell concluded his delegation by urging council to move forward without any further delay while protecting the aquifer and meeting all regulatory requirements.
Gibsons Mayor Wayne Rowe responded by thanking Russell for addressing council.
“We are striving to at least move the process forward as quickly as we can, but still respecting those requirements,” Rowe said. “A decision has to be made. It needs to be put to rest, whatever the ultimate decision might be.”
During discussion on recent design changes to the George, Coun. Jeremy Valeriote moved an amendment to ask the advisory planning commission for advice regarding July 20 sketches and the most recent exterior renderings of the George, and that it be provided by the end of August.
Rowe said he didn’t support the motion. “I think that this project now is really at a stage where it has to be determined by elected officials, not put off to other people who are volunteers.”
There was no seconder.
