The proposed development of a series of clusters of cabins near Jordan River has been rejected overwhelmingly by the public at a series of meetings. Only a handful of speakers has supported this plan.
Yet, the majority of members of the Land Use Committee (LUC) are either in favour of it or are considering it seriously, as of March 3.
Much indignation stems from the removal of this land from the timber reserve (TFL) a few years ago. Superimposed on this is the plan of this development. It would be very close to a popular hiking trail, its economic viability has been questioned, and a major change in zoning would be needed to accommodate the large increase in density.
This is not just a question of ‘to develop or not.’ A much more important question arises. Would this series of cabins be of benefit to the vast majority of those who live nearby and to the hikers from all over the province, or would it, if successful, just make money for a few individuals?
Also, if the scheme fails, what would happen to the buildings and to the zoning?
What about the members of LUC? Apparently not all have been elected; one or more have been appointed. Yet, this committee is saddled with a very critical decision.
One thing is certain. Many, many more people are against this proposal than are in favour of it. That is, a disconnect exists between the general population and those who are our ‘elected’ representatives. Likely, latent feelings of preservation and protection have been awakened by this controversial topic. This has possibly arisen from the way the matter was handled. Also, perhaps a few of our elected representatives have misrepresented themselves to the electorate during the last municipal election campaign.
Another municipal election is coming up soon. Something more than a green coat of whitewash will be needed this time to get certain candidates re-elected.
Dale W. Read