Peace Arch News Thursday, May 9, 2013
letters
www.peacearchnews.com 7
Peace Arch News
Get on board, White Rock Editor: Re: Priorities skate over real issues, April 30 letters. After reading Stuart Mitchell’s letter regarding the recent crackdown on longboarding by the RCMP and City of White Rock bylaw officers, I have reached a new level of anger on this issue. We moved to White Rock two years ago but have lived in the general area for many years. I knew White Rock liked to have a “small beach town” image, but I had no idea it was so incredibly small-minded. The treatment of youth and children in this city, by this city, is appalling. We offer few recreational activities – the most recent leisure guide published by the city had 80 per cent of its content dedicated to adults and seniors. I guess we know where kids rank in the City of White Rock. Maybe the city is saying: “Hey, kid, just go to the beach – but don’t you dare bring your dog!” Skateboarding is a healthy outdoor activity for kids to participate in; kids have been doing so since the 1960s. Where is this the impetus for this recent crackdown coming from? Who has bent the ear of the city? Is this really what our RCMP should be spending their time on? If the current bylaw clearly shows on a map an area where skateboarding is specifically banned, then one would conclude that the area outside this zone is permissible. I would love to see someone fight this in court – the reasonable doubt is wide enough for a freighter. And by the way, City of White Rock, not all longboarders are young kids that you can intimidate – some are 44 and own homes here, pay taxes here and pay the wages of RCMP officers, bylaw officers, mayors, councillors and city staff. Start serving all the people of White Rock, not just the noisy, busybody ones that get your ear. Michael J. Klaver, White Rock n Re: Boarders appeal bylaw, May 2. I see that Larry Robinson, a White Rock councillor, is not receiving support regarding skateboarding bylaw from a certain segment from the population, i.e., anyone who is over a ‘certain age’ and obviously not skateboarders themselves. Well, I am writing to tell you that I am in that ‘older’ age bracket and I fully support these kids. I think they are wonderful and should be
encouraged to practise their sport, with all the appropriate caveats – due care, safety, etc. I see them line up on Buena Vista at the top of Dolphin, getting ready to start their descent down Cliff, and I admire their courage and elegance. I wish I could join them. Having seeing these talented young people for a while, I am surprised White Rock doesn’t do something to celebrate this activity, something similar to the cycling race, Tour de White Rock. Maybe a skateboarding race? That should really get the seniors all worked up! Funny how some older people dump on everything that young people do, having forgotten all the things they got up to in their youth. Well, even though I am retired
now, I haven’t forgotten what it was like to be young, and I know that these young people are good kids. Let’s support these kids to do what they love in a smart, safe way. Hannah Newman, White Rock
Animals rely on all of us Editor: We are a group of Grade 7 boys from Southridge School looking to make a difference in our community. We are trying to raise awareness about a new hotline that has been launched by the BC SPCA to report animal abuse and neglect.
Currently, SPCA shelters receive nearly 6,000 reports of animal cruelty annually. Now, thanks to donors, the SPCA has launched a province-wide hotline devoted to receiving calls regarding animal abuse. This new call centre will be able to dispatch emergency services and special constables across B.C. This designated toll-free hotline will allow the shelters’ staff to devote more time to the animals’ care and adoption services. The animals in our community rely on all of us to keep them safe. We urge everyone to make note of this new hotline – 1-855-622-7722 – so we can all do our part and keep our animals safe from cruelty and abuse. Jack Bowie, Joshua Block & Kale Fehr, Surrey
“ “
quote of note
The official community plan is not cast in stone and its content is not legally binding. However, surely there is a moral obligation…❞ ❝
Peter Hemmes
write: File photo
An overflow crowd at an April 29 public hearing comprised opponents and supporters of a Vidal Street proposal.
A poor way to plan our future Editor: Re: Project foes, supporters out in force, May 2. What is the actual benefit of the proposed Vidal Street project, if any, to current residents or taxpayers? There is no reason to believe a change of OCP and zoning bylaws to accommodate 12 townhouse units and 97 apartments in this area would contribute to the wellbeing of the community and its new members. Most likely, it would lower the quality of life – more traffic congestion, more noise and air pollution, less green and open space, loss of wildlife habitat and views. Lowering our quality of life is sad enough, but it also increases taxes. To base growth on the ability to milk new residents for tax revenue is a sophism, since additional taxes are needed to pay for services that the new residents would require. We are outraged to see some residents who gained political influence by strongly opposing building up in the town centre five years ago now use said influence to support urban growth beyond limits and destruction of mature trees for personal benefit. Thomas Gessell & Genevieve Loslier, White Rock n The public hearing for a proposed 12-storey building at upper Vidal Street demonstrated the process for approving projects, certainly in this instance, is flawed.
The cart is being put before the horse. A 12-storey building at the intended location outside the Town Centre is a significant departure from the principles outlined in the official community plan. This project requires a maximum shift in density; low to high. Spot zoning to accommodate such a structure would establish a threatening precedent for the OCP’s Development Permit Area 3, which includes upper Vidal Street, and indeed for all White Rock. Instead of council amending bylaws to accommodate a proposed building, the OCP should first be updated to reflect the changed social, physical and economic environment of White Rock. Subsequent development proposals consistent with the revised OCP would not be overly controversial. For the long term, the city’s time and energy would be better spent on an OCP update, which was last done five years ago, rather than introducing bylaws and attending public hearings to accommodate specific projects. The official community plan is not cast in stone and its content is not legally binding. However, surely there is a moral obligation for council to adhere to the OCP’s guidelines rather than consider bylaw changes to accommodate a project that may not be in the best interest of White Rock and its residents. Peter Hemmes, White Rock
200 - 2411 160 Street, Surrey, B.C. V3S 0C8
fax: 604.531.7977
email: editorial@ peacearchnews.com
questions? 604.531.1711
Submissions will be edited for clarity, brevity, legality and taste. (please include full contact information, including address)