Mr. Matheson, by reading your op/ed, clearly you have passion for your cause, many do.
Several months back many citizens voiced their opinions and concerns in regards to the water meters. Many wrote letters, attended meetings and felt the process should have happened differently. Why is this group any different?
It is in my “opinion” you owe these people an apology, you implied they are affluent, fortunate, comfortable, privileged, gentrify, lobbyists and you criticized them for voicing their concerns. This group of people are merely voicing their concerns and not being prejudiced in any manner. Is this not their right?
In your editorial you made it clear neither BC Housing nor the Boundary Women’s Coalition need to notify the neighbouring area of their proposed development. Mr. Matheson, a facility such as a transition house, with the potential of a second-stage or long-term housing that could house 20-plus women and children fleeing violence is not a typical dwelling(s) next door.
I too would ask questions and have concerns. I believe that is one doing their “due diligence.”
I find it amusing that the city had to hire a consultant to interpret their own bylaws. Could that be because the interpretation is vague and open to debate? This proposed development is a new build to our community.
Looks like all logic went out the door again.
– A. Cameron, Grand Forks