Dear Editor:
I was initially in favour of the proposed correctional facility coming to Summerland. On the surface, the potential of reliable, year-round employment combined with a substantial municipal tax influx seems a no-brainer.
Upon further investigation and considerable assessment of the pros and cons however, it’s my opinion that we should say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”
Monday’s meeting reinforced this for me with several glaring points:
1) There is no provision for increased RCMP resources in this proposition.
2) Although most of the incarcerated at this facility will be serving sentences of less than two years, it is a remand centre and will house, albeit temporarily, sex offenders, pedophiles, and murderers.
3) All of the current models of existing, similar institutions are in larger centres. There is no reasonable comparison for us to weigh. The ability of such a facility to blend in with other industry is impossible here, when it has the potential to be the single-largest employer.
4) The presentation did not include representation of any professional, third-party.
Call me a NIMBY, in this rare instance it’s a badge I will wear proudly with substantiated facts and research.
Summerland is in desperate need of economic growth, no doubt. We have had more than our share of misfortune in this regard in recent years.
One of Summerland’s greatest assets is our low crime rate. Who can say exactly by what degree our crime rate may or may not increase, yet by the very existence of such a facility, our risk of crime has significantly increased.
Would guards at such a facility invest in property and reside in Summerland? If I were a guard with a young family, the last place I would invest in is the town, especially a small town, where the facility is. In 2016, after this place has been built, how do you as economic development officer, or chamber of commerce, sell our town to future investors, manufacturers, developers?
Whether there is a higher risk of crime, there is sure to be one perceived. You could substitute the word “crime” there with any other potential negative like, “decreased property value.”
By succumbing to a desperate situation, we may very well restrict future growth and development beyond this facility. Would we be considering it if it weren’t for the current economy?
I applaud the energy and enthusiasm of those seeking a quick-fix to our economic conundrum. But I do believe it is short-sighted. By closing this door, we allow many to remain open without being branded as the prison town.
It’s possible that this debate will spark many of us into action. I hope it does and I vow to take a more active role in developing our future.
There are long-term implications of this proposition that are easily hidden by short-term gain.
We have a fabulous, safe community in which to invest. Do we really want to change that?
John Barber
Summerland