Editor:
Coast Reporter asks its readership: “Do you support the Gibsons Alliance of Business and Community’s (GABC) efforts to stop the George from proceeding?”
Surely, both the Town of Gibsons and the need for a dependable source of drinking water will exist long after the GABC is forgotten about. One expects that the George structure will itself endure for a longer period than the GABC does.
Thus the issue here is the George. Not the GABC. While the question is not quite a loaded one, it does seem rather irrelevant. By definition, irrelevant questions can only yield irrelevant answers.
Given the stage where things are at, wouldn’t it be more valuable to inquire about people’s expectations of the outcomes?
For instance: “Do you think the hotel and conference centre component of the George will be a viable business?”
Or perhaps: “Are you fully confident that the George development will not cause any damage to the aquifer?”
The Gibsons electorate apparently accepted the George. Isn’t it best to confirm that they are getting what they voted for?
Alan Donenfeld, Gibsons
