Dear Editor:
Why did the mayor say the Banks Crescent proposal was a ‘done deal’ last July prior to the application being brought before council formally in November?
Despite being ‘excited’ as he claims he also stated in early December that “it is a small piece of agricultural land and it is insignificant as there are many other such parcels of land like this one” and “grapes are not food.”
He has made it quite clear that “ his vote will be YES and nothing is going to change his mind”— except if no alternate water source for the fisheries can be determined.
The mayor also stated council wasn’t to engage in debate. Why not?
No referendum — again why not?
As the mayor is the designated head of council has his attitude influenced other members of council?
Wouldn’t the Freshwater Fisheries Society have developed an alternate water source if there was a viable alternative? How many times does the Freshwater Fisheries Society have to say no to the proposal?
Summerland has two water licenses for a reason. Why should the district consider giving one of these to a private developer at the expense of the community?
Why has the current developmental officer stated that other projects currently being considered in Summerland must be “within the context of the neighbourhood” but not this development? Why not ?
The area is surrounded by single family dwellings.
The Canadian Advertising Council found the developers guilty of misleading the public and providing false information in their brochures.
What else have we, the public, been misled about concerning this development? What will the associated costs be?
Mary-Anne MacDonald
Summerland