Letters: Why change wording?

Sooke resident wonders why wording changed on borrowing authorization

Why do you suppose the Inspector of Municipalities ordered council to remove the “renovation” phrase from the original bylaw authorizing the district to borrow up to $1.5-million “to construct new or renovate existing community facilities.” (Sooke News Mirror, August 27, 2014)? Presumably because council never has any intention of sprucing up our existing and more-than-adequate community hall, but hopes the suggestion might attract favorable votes from those who believed the $1.5-million was only intended, as Ellen Lewers writes int he same Sooke News Mirror, to answer “the call of a few, from some special interest groups.”

Yet even after the Inspector of Municipalities threw out the misleading wording, showing that the $1.5-million is entirely to be for “purchasing property, design and construction of a (new) building” (Sooke News Mirror August 27, 2014), Acting Mayor Maja Tait maintains that “construction” includes “renovation.” This defies logic, all the various meanings of “construction” in the dictionary, and the “intent” of the inspector.

Ms. Tait’s claim that the “intent behind the previous wording” is still in place, therefore, only continues the ploy to influence voters.

What’s your “intent” when it come time to vote on this boondoggle?

Dick Momsen

Sooke