Skip to content

Letter: Sale provokes questions

Concerning the recent sale of lands to Sino Bright [“City signs land deal with international school,” February 8], here are some questions I have been asking myself: Would I be concerned if a Chinese Government (communist) entity was buying waterfron

Concerning the recent sale of lands to Sino Bright [“City signs land deal with international school,” February 8], here are some questions I have been asking myself:

  • Would I be concerned if a Chinese Government (communist) entity was buying waterfront land to build a school so they could be subsidized by Brooks Secondary School's publicly-paid-for cafeteria, library, teachers and classrooms? Yes. But it's not the communists I'm worried about.
  • Would I be concerned if a for-profit business (capitalist) entity was buying waterfront land to build a school so they could be subsidized by Brooks Secondary's publicly-paid-for cafeteria, library, teachers and classrooms? Yes. But it's not the capitalists that I'm worried about.
  • Would I be concerned if the sale of ecologically-important waterfront lands with substantial forest values occurred weeks after dissolution of PRSC, was sold by an agency that had no mandate to sell land (PRWDC), and that my elected leaders (mayor and council) had no knowledge of this for two months? Yes.

For well over a decade, a small group of people tasked with administering a large chunk of real estate have been selling our future opportunities, sometimes at a financial loss, and occasionally leaving taxpayers "on the hook" for things like the infamous "looped road."

Despite repeated promises that "we'll do better," the recent history of land management has proceeded with no discussion, no financial accounting, no vision of ecological stewardship, and ultimately, no respect for democratic ideals or "due process."

Andrew Bryant
Oliver Street