ear Editor:
Re: City says it fell short on explaining tower plan, The Record, Sept. 5.
I read the article 'City says it fell short -' and was drawn to a few comments made by our mayor and council. Mayor Wright is quoted as saying, "other developers have told the city that constructing a public and a private building in one location can be a 'difficult' undertaking". If it was difficult for the developers (his campaign contributors) then is it not equally as difficult for the city? Perhaps even more so given the city has absolutely no experience in this field? One would have to conclude that if this statement is true, then it is likely equally as difficult to sell the tower, over a public building to private interests, resulting in the city being saddled with this icon to poor planning and decision making permanently.
Next, the mayor displays a classic Napoleonic viewpoint of New West in relation to our efficiently run neighbours. In his effort to keep up with the proverbial Joneses, he states, "We are good enough to be the same as Surrey - Burnaby -Vancouver." In the context of the "development business," he is seeing our fair city through rose-coloured glasses. These cities can afford to take the risk - New West certainly cannot.
Mayor and select council apparently believe New West is equal to Vancouver whose population is 603,502, Burnaby with 223,218 and Surrey with 468,251. New West has a population of only 65,972 (Figures from 2012 Metro Vancouver population consensus). This is the equivalent of comparing an eulachon to a sturgeon. This doesn't factor in the huge tax base from business these neighbouring cities enjoy; while New West has seen this revenue source steadily decline over the past decade.
If I am not mistaken, Burnaby alone has approximately $500 million in reserves! How much does New West have? With massive reserves, population and business taxes, these cities are poised to take advantage of a strong fiscal position. New West simply is not.
Last, Coun. Chuck Puchmayr (who voted against the funding and development of the tower by the city) has mentioned in committee of the whole, chambers and in this article that the 2,098 $59-million opposition forms were largely the result of "one man's campaign." While he never names this person, one assumes he refers to 2011 mayoral candidate and citizen advocate James Crosty. Mr. Crosty must be pleased to be given so much credit for orchestrating this great display of democracy but is humble enough to acknowledge that it was not him alone that made this anti-bylaw campaign a measured success. No doubt, the scores of people who worked independent of Crosty's efforts will take umbrage to this flawed view Mr. Puchmayr puts forth as an explanation to the opposition. Had Coun. Puchmayr consulted with the more experienced councillors McIntosh and Williams, he would understand that along with Mr. Crosty, the fear of increasing debt and out-of-control spending by city and council were clearly the reasons for the significant negative response by citizens to the bylaw.
Paul R. Thompson, New Westminster
