Editor:
R. Bryan’s letter (“AAP stacked against us,” Aug. 6) in support of not having water meters inspired me to write. The so-called vote was a sham. By saying that 10 per cent of the people would need to vote against the water meters automatically gave a 90 per cent vote in favour of them. This is not a vote, this is manipulation of a process. A vote consists of ballots both for or against an issue and the people who turn out to vote is the deciding factor. Those who fail to vote do not automatically get a vote predetermined by those in office.
This was the second vote held to determine the future of water meters. The first one failed. The second so-called vote just held was accompanied by a statement in the newspaper that if it failed the next process would be an expensive plebiscite (“SCRD plans to call referendum if water meter AAP fails, says Siegers,” June 4). How many times do the people have to say no? How many voting processes were we going to be subjected to before the district got its way?
The argument that meters would help detect water leaks is spurious. We already have that ability in place. The other argument, that it would help in assessing the amount of water used, is another questionable one. Page 5 of the Aug. 6 Reporter states, “Water use only decreased slightly since latest restrictions began.” How do they know without meters?
Spending over $7 million on meters when that money could be used for reservoirs is a colossal waste. Increases in housing, residents, tourists and industry require water, not meters.
Gordon Bader, Sechelt