In response to Simon Broomhall (“Zero credibility,” Sept. 24) and William Baker (“George Hotel blues,” Oct. 2) we, residents opposed to the George in its present form, are not a mob or a gang, nor do we think we are experts as Keith Ujvary (“Same voices,” Oct. 9)
accuses. We are merely people who have read the experts’ reports. The peer reviews by Levelton Engineering cited risks to the aquifer: “potential soil piping, uncontrolled sinkhole, aquifer depressurization or ground settlement, all of which could be catastrophic.” Waterline Resources, who conducted the mapping of the aquifer, cited the same concerns.
We read the research into the toxic contamination by another expert, Andre Sobolewski, PhD, and are concerned that the Town has not submitted a site profile assessment to the BC Ministry of the Environment. The site is contaminated with lethal chemicals such as petrohydrocarbons and tributyltin.
We also read the economic studies by Dr. Dorothy Riddle, another well-qualified expert, which suggest that a smaller hotel would be more profitable and that job and profit predictions are unlikely. She has also calculated the value of the assets the Town is giving to the developer at a ridiculously subsidized price.
We are concerned about the town’s liability, which would be passed on to taxpayers.
Neither are we a minority as was seen at the public hearing when we outnumbered the pro-George speakers.
If the pro-George people investigated further than the promised benefits, they might also have doubts.
Christine Gaskins, Gibsons