Editor:
The people behind SSC Properties did an excellent job marketing their development using buzzwords like “sustainable,” “green” and “affordable housing” and making people feel included with their “visioning” sessions.
They went out of their way to show us what great guys they are, hosting community events like electric car and paddling festivals. But questions about the feasibility of building a Whistler-like town centre on sand went unanswered, despite the goings on at the Seawatch development up the Inlet.
When asked how they were going to mitigate the effects of their development on the salmon-bearing stream going through their property, they didn’t seem to know it was there. They were all about being good neighbours, but when their future neighbours brought up concerns regarding noise and light pollution, we were either supposed to learn to “live with it” or “if you can’t beat us join us,” meaning, I suppose, we should sell our homes to move into their development and become part of the problem, not the solution.
There were a lot of red flags about their proposal that never seemed to get talked about openly in the media or at public meetings. The fact that a district planner still identified 30 conditions that should be placed on the development after years of “visioning” highlights there were many real and practical issues still to be addressed.
Sandra Corbett, Sechelt
