Editor: I would appreciate if you printed the following response to Alister Frayne’s letter to the editor (The Times, March 18).
If anything within the Coulter Berry debate has been reductio ad absurdum, it is Frayne’s letter suggesting no good reasons were offered for the proposed rezoning for Coulter Berry at its recent public hearing. It’s weird though, considering he stated exactly what people were saying “the building was unique, LEED-certified, attractive, and so on.”
I guess the only speech he listened to at the public hearing was his own. In fact, many supporters, (who, by the way, significantly outnumbered opponents), offered lots of justification for Coulter Berry 2.0: underground parking, a more walkable design, and a great interface to Lee’s Market, all of which is only possible because of the third floor. Lots of us want to see more walkable designs, not parking lots in Fort Langley’s commercial core.
Perhaps Frayne is upset that he represents what many Coulter Berry opponents outlined they would be happy with: the lowest common denominator of movie set architecture, as long as it is two storeys.
And maybe he’s upset because when he and all the other opponents put their fingers in their ears saying “la la la, we can’t hear you,” they missed the part about how the OCP actually supports three storeys and hiding parking, and now they look silly. Tsk, tsk, we should always listen to the facts.
How is this version of a Monty Python parody?
“I like Mr. Woodward’s building but it’s illegal and I’d like him to make it two storeys”
“Yes, but why make it two storeys if the OCP actually supports a third floor for residential?”
“So that it can be two storeys and we can park on the street.”
“Yes, but why park on the street if there can be an underground?”
“So that we can have it two storeys.”
“Yes, but why….”
(repeat, ad nauseum)
We all know what Frayne’s answer to that question would be. He wants his third floor for free. To that, council should indeed say “reductio ad absurdum.”
Susan T. Morris,