Editor:
Re: Gibsons official community plan
I, too, do not like irresponsible, unfounded accusations. Mudslinging — in whatever cause — hurts us all and poisons the democratic process.
Equally, I do not like inaccurate reporting and inaccurate insinuations of bullying. Everyone who attended the OCP hearing on March 10 was asked as they arrived if they wished to speak. If so, they were put on the speakers list. No one lined up to “monopolize the microphones.” Those who wished to speak in favour of all the changes had ample opportunity. The allegation of bullying is disgraceful.
Most of those who did speak supported many of the changes and disagreed with some particular specifics. Most gave civil, respectful, specific reasons for their disagreement. Reasonable people can disagree about what will be the most useful way forward.
I am extremely disappointed that disagreement is branded as being negative. I am disappointed that as a citizen I have not been allowed a public opportunity to ask questions about — and get answers to — the reasoning behind competing economic analyses. Could we please talk about the issues — pro and con?
Some chose to send supporting letters that were one line stating agreement with the total OCP revisions, but not giving reasons. That’s OK. Yes, some people did make more than one submission. Usually each letter focused on one particular aspect. They were neither a blanket endorsement nor blanket condemnation of the OCP revisions. I chose to send more than one “form letter” because I agreed with it and with the rationale. Also OK.
Civic involvement/engagement is vital. Let us do so respectfully and talk about the issues.
Bet Cecill, Gibsons
