Dear Editor:
Re: Crosty opposes everything, The Record, Aug. 8.
It appears that Scott Larsen may be sniffing more than the flowers along the esplanade if we read his mischaracterizations of James Crosty's positions in his Aug. 8 letter to the editor. For those less informed, this is not Mr. Larsen's first personal negative rant against Mr. Crosty. Please allow me to share some facts that Mr. Larsen clearly missed.
Fact: Mr. Crosty did not campaign against Westminster Pier Park; he was concerned about the horrendous cost and potential cost overruns.
Fact: Mr. Crosty had the right to appeal his provincial assessment and, as a citizen advocate, those of his neighbours (many of them seniors) who would have otherwise seen an unprecedented increase in their property values resulting in higher property taxes.
I, for one, personally appreciate the efforts of Mr. Crosty and the many volunteers who did nothing more than try to inform residents not only of the city's plan to borrow $59 million to complete the office tower, but that we could oppose it and how we could oppose it. I'm afraid I'm one of the countless who missed the notice that the city published on this subject.
In Larsen's eyes, the city can do no wrong as he has become the "polyannic purveyor of positivity" in his boosterism of all things that his friends at city hall do to increase his taxes.
How this will affect the value or marketability of his property is obviously moot, but many of us have to watch our expenses more closely than he obviously does. If we don't, we may all be forced to occupy his metaphoric tents - not because we object to investing in the future, but because we failed to hold our elected officials accountable for wise and prudent investments.
For example, if Mr. Larsen looked down from the flower baskets on the Quay and examined the superstructure of the esplanade walkway, he might consider the rehabilitation of this 30-year-old infrastructure a more important priority for his taxes and a better investment in the future of that amenity and his contiguous property.
To put a more positive spin on his negative rhetorical question: "We do elect people to our city government to decide for us certain expenditures that will have a positive impact in the future."
We did not, however, elect them to bail out a failed office tower project abandoned, for "business reasons" by a prudent property developer who knows the market, at the expense of New Westminster's taxpayers' reserves.
The risk and financial impact of that decision was not even canvassed during the election.
A successful referendum initiative would have put taxpayer concerns to a democratic test. Something that Mr. Larsen clearly was unable to comprehend from the City of New Westminster's alternative approval process.
In the future Mr. Larsen may need to consider less coffee and a little more tea. He may also wish to get his facts straight and perhaps take a lesson from Mr. Crosty, who at times may voice is opposition and/ or opinions but has the class to not make it a personal attack on any one individual.
Jacquie Stevenson, New Westminster
