Letters to the Editor

No good reason offered for OCP, heritage guideline changes

Editor: The Times’ latest coverage on the Coulter Berry saga was disappointing in its lack of any insight into the more profound issues underlying the community dispute.

The underlying issues are not the format or appearance of the building, or the speculated benefits (or otherwise) to Fort Langley. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on those.

No, the real issues are the proposed amendments and changes to the Official Community Plan and Heritage Guidelines, and why those amendments should be considered by council.

Despite the mayor’s exhortation to speakers at the public hearing to focus on the agenda topic, viz. “Should the OCP and guidelines be amended to permit this development,” most of the supporters of the project chose to reiterate what would be built, and who would build it. The message was similar:  the building was unique, LEED certified, attractive, and so on.

These may well be so, but are of little value in explaining exactly why the existing restrictions and guidelines should be amended.  We already know the answer to the question of what (Hint: the answer is — this building). But why?

I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why the OCP and guidelines should be amended (other than the obvious one — it serves the need of the developer).

Unfortunately, that’s not an adequate answer, and council cannot be fool us into thinking it is. It’s a circular argument, and reminiscent of the Monty Python “I have a theory, which is mine and belongs to me” skit:

“I’d like you to relax the restrictions so I can build my building”

“Yes, but why do you want us to relax the restrictions?”

“So I can build my building”

“Yes, but why do you want us to relax the restrictions so you can build your building?”

“Well, it’s a very nice building”

“ Yes, but why...” etc.

(repeat, ad nauseum)

In the absence of an answer to this question of why, the only rational conclusion one can draw is that there is no defensible reason for council to amend the OCP and guidelines (other than the obvious one — so that the building can be built). Truly, it is reductio ad absurdum.

Alister Frayne,

Langley

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

You might like ...

Labour consumes most new tax dollars cities collect
 
Senior Games in the black
 
Fox rocks in thrilling final
Froese to Watts: time to act on 72 Avenue intersection
 
70 volunteers plant 2,000 trees at Aldergrove park
 
B.C. doctors want clarity on prescribing medical marijuana
Smart meter refusal fees trimmed
 
UPDATE: Surrey baby treated for burns and released
 
No reversal on smart meters, Coleman insists

Community Events, October 2014

Add an Event

Read the latest eEdition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Oct 23 edition online now. Browse the archives.