Dear Editor,
Re: Mar 13, 2012 article – Difference of opinion behind resignation…
Perhaps you might clear up some confusion, Mr. Editor. I have been unable to find the original letter to the Barrhead Leader that you referenced in your article as being written by Ms. Mendelsohn. It is very difficult to put context to a discussion when only bits and pieces of a referenced publication are offered. This seems especially true when only one (apparently very satisfied) member of the committee is interviewed for comment. Your article, in doing so, appears unfairly weighted. Unfair weighting in decision-making seems to be the crux of the Area Structure Plan committee membership issue, doesn’t it?
The practice of promising inclusive, transparent decision making through the formation of “community stakeholder” groups too often leaves the community volunteers feeling undervalued. The devoted, local taxpayers many times feel that their time and their input are abused in a meaningless process. The process has often been described as democracy with a pre-determined outcome.
As a Canadian, I am appalled that any publicly funded committee could place mandatory gag orders on their unpaid, apparently recruited membership or would issue any restrictive ultimatums or qualifiers to their participation.
Equally unappetizing is the spectre of an elected regulating board that apparently considers the people in the community so unsophisticated that they need their portion of information premeasured, predigested, then regurgitated and served at one open house.
Aside from the question of who may or may not have mental competence to understand that the exploitation profits are for well funded privateers and that consequences of long term reclamation, mitigation, permanent environmental degradation and agricultural land loss fall to the public purse and to future generations, this writer wonders who would be so gullible as to believe such a statement as quoted. “If there’s any sensitive issues with the land, or ecological issues, they get turned down.” The quoted statement is laughable and a remarkable insult to the intelligence of every citizen.
Healthy, functioning intact watersheds (groundwater, surface water and land) are essential to our continuing existence. Today, wise land use decisions (measured in accumulation and in the long term) are critically important to all of us. County land use decisions today dictate the health, future opportunity and well being of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Surely the priority of generational security must be set before corporate profit. The guiding force in a decision making process should be as promised — by the people for the people.
Thank you,
D. Christian
