Editor:
I am writing in response to Morley Baker’s and Doug Hockley’s recent letters concerning the Gibsons “majority.”
To Mr. Baker (a local businessman who in a previous letter to Coast Reporter characterized the George as a gift from a local businessman), I suggest the relevant discussion surrounds who the public voted in (and not who they voted out). The three new councillors, as well as incumbent SanJenko, all ran on a platform of readiness to negotiate with the developer on behalf of the town. Interestingly, the developer recently told the council he is not prepared to negotiate at all. More interestingly, the councillors have made hardly an utterance regarding the George since then. The majority may (or may not) be silent, but it appears the council has been silenced. Is this more of the system of democracy to which Baker refers?
With regards to Mr. Hockley’s closing comments in his letter, the documented history of the OCP reveals it is hardly representative of just a “single moment” in time.
Furthermore, the purpose of the OCP is to set the “longer term” course and destination and to provide steadiness in the face of whatever storms blow in. It only appears to be an anchor to those intent on pulling in an opposite direction.
Rather than arguing about what the majority wants or what the OCP means, perhaps it would be most pragmatic to hold a referendum asking one simple question: “Do you vote to accept the current George proposal, as is? (Yes or No).” Since the developer is not willing to negotiate, either result would necessarily prove final.
Who could possibly object to having the electorate speak directly to the matter at hand?
Alan Donenfeld, Gibsons
