Inconsistent editorial
In your editorial [“Inconsistent rulings,” November 23] regarding the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) decision rejecting the application to exclude land from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) for a 30-acre parcel of land, you questioned why the ALC excluded a larger amount for Site C.
The answer is very simple: Site C was excluded because cabinet (BC Liberals) enacted an Order in Council and compelled the ALC to do so; that’s it. The BC Liberals used their power to completely bypass the normal process. The commission was not consulted, the BC Utilities Commission was also bypassed and, similarly, the public. Even during the joint review panel, experts from the agrologist community came out to talk about how some of the soils in that area were some of the best in the ALR.
Someone needs to fully inform the public of the truth, rather than mislead the public as you have in your editorial. I realize an editorial is supposed to be the newspaper’s opinion, which I can respect, but I think you really mixed up the facts. Your editorial is a fine example of disappointing journalism and research.
Thomas Loo
Salt Spring Island, BC
Speaking volumes
While I appreciate senior administration’s disappointment with the Agricultural Land Commission’s decision [“City officials express shock over Sino Bright denial,” November 23], the process has raised some important issues about public engagement.
I understand that a number of people in Powell River made direct submissions to the commission after feeling left out of the process and that their views, expressed at the public forum, were misrepresented in the final proposal.
It is hard to say how these outlier submissions may have influenced the final outcome, but they say volumes about the public’s expectation to be legitimately included, from the very beginning, in any large-scale project.
Maureen Mason
Cranberry Street
