Dear Editor:
The two recent writers to the Summerland Review in support of the Banks Crescent luxury condo development stated, “Who are we to deny the residents of Summerland the perceived benefits?”
Who are we? We are residents who moved to Summerland for its charm, uniqueness and small town feel.
We are residents who left big cities and their cookie cutter overdesigned density in exchange for sensible, sensitive development in harmony with the local agricultural environment.
We are residents who want to live in our own homes as long as possible and not in the dark, inaccessible gully above the hatchery.
If the writer wants to live in a high density neighbourhood (imagine 424 more houses on your street) then maybe Summerland’s quirkiness and charm isn’t for them.
The perceived benefits of town revenue has not yet been shown to balance against the costs all residents will bear.
There’s no guarantee permanent jobs will materialize as the developer has stated they will only build assisted living units as the market dictates.
Has the “world class St. Elizabeth’s Health Care” even contacted Interior Health about providing services?
Our mayor has stated in the January question and answer session that any tax revenue will support town infrastructure not the skateboard park or arena.
The companion writer last week lauded the “expert professional’s studies” on the hatchery concerns.
These same professionals have stated there would be no impact to the hatchery or the stability of the surrounding slopes and have several times misrepresented and misstated the hatchery’s concerns.
Why then isn’t the hatchery buying the professionals spin?
As this couple appear to be heading up the group in favour of the 424 luxury condo development and the main voice of support, do they have a connection to the developer?
It’s unfortunate that their perception of community benefits is flawed and could influence less informed residents.
Diana Smith
Summerland