Editor’s note: This letter was sent to 撸奶社区council and copied to The 撸奶社区.
I am a Garibaldi Highlands resident and property taxpayer.
I am appalled at the manner in which council has proceeded with respect to the TUP for the floatel at the WLNG site.
The public notice for the meeting clearly stated that “this meeting is not an opportunity for public input.” Nevertheless, council made what appears to be an impromptu decision to allow several protesters to make presentations after which a number of essentially peripheral issues that were raised by the protesters were cited as reason to again deny the TUP.
One can only conclude that the reconsideration of the TUP was not done in good faith or without prejudice. It did not adhere to the ‘no public input’ limitation. It did not reflect democratic principles of procedure by selectively listening to protesters.
Rather, council demonstrated a lack of respect for the process as soon as it deviated from the meeting notice by allowing outside input. It demonstrated bias by giving a vocal minority the opportunity for input but denying that opportunity to the general public. Council further demonstrated prejudice against the applicant by expanding the list of issues and/or regurgitating previously considered issues that are not directly relevant to the temporary zoning being requested or may be outside District jurisdiction.
This entire episode is a betrayal of public trust and in my opinion, demonstrates a lack of integrity. There is potential for lawsuits that may well prove costly to all of us who are taxpayers. Council should remember that they are accountable to ALL taxpayers, not just those who share their ideologies. Councillors cannot be expected to abandon their beliefs, but they must not allow their personal ideologies to blind them to other aspects of community interest and they must never allow a personal ideology to take precedence over the betterment of the community.
I appeal to council to convene an in-camera meeting as soon as practicable to:
• contemplate both the procedural and ethical legitimacy of June 4's meeting as it unfolded;
• considering the deviation from the meeting notice and the acceptance of inputs from protesters while excluding the general public, assess the legal legitimacy, if contested in a court of law, and the moral legitimacy, as in the court of public opinion, of the outcomes of the meeting;
• rescind the decisions made at that meeting; and
• convene a further Council meeting and either approve or reject the TUP based only on issues directly related to the TUP (not WLNG in general, FortisBC, or other extraneous issues) with due consideration of the fiscal and economic impact on Squamish, both the District and local businesses.
Whether or not I personally agree with the eventual decision is not relevant: I will respect it if it is made in good faith, without prejudice or favouritism, and in a procedurally proper manner.
Rae Simpson
Squamish
