Editor:
Re: “Anti-George petition debunked,” Sept. 18.
The Oxford Dictionary of English defines “debunk” as “reveal to be false.” Joan Beck’s little speech at the Sept. 15 Gibsons council meeting did no such thing. It criticized the petition, but revealed nothing false about it.
In fact, Ms. Beck merely confirmed what GABC has already stated: that this proposed non-compliant development is of concern not only to residents of Gibsons proper, but also to the hundreds of tourists who visit each year because of our village character – tourists who’ve said they’ll stop coming because our village character will be forever destroyed if this monstrosity is built on our harbourfront.
Ms. Beck’s assertion that the GABC petition claims the proposed parking garage would puncture the aquifer is also completely false. The GABC petition merely demands that council “guarantee that Gibsons Aquifer will not be placed at risk by the development.” Ironically, the pro-George petition requests the same thing.
Jacob Roberts refers to the Sept. 24 open house as a “public consultation meeting.” Consultation implies that the developer and Town staff would be listening to citizen concerns and potentially altering the proposal accordingly.
The meeting will, in fact, be a pro-George public relations exercise – a perception confirmed by Coun. Valeriote’s comment that, were councillors to attend, they’d be “answering questions on behalf of the proponent.” Councillors are supposed to be unbiased, representing all their constituents. The structure of this meeting, with no alternative displays or expert opinions permitted, will be biased in the extreme.
Mr. Roberts’ headline will no doubt do its job of grabbing readers’ attention; but he would do well to choose his words more carefully, and understand the meaning of the words he uses, in the interests of good journalistic ethics.
Katie Janyk, Gibsons
