Why so opposed to stream protection regulations?
Editor, The News:
Re: Frustrating side of conservation (Letters, Feb. 15).
Sandy MacDougall has written about the frustrations of developers and landowners wishing to unburden themselves and others of land in the hopes of cutting it into many small saleable pieces of suburban sprawl.
He claims our government's attempts to preserve the waterways in Maple Ridge, are too burdensome on those developers that "want to preserve those precious amenities".
God bless those developers. Then he closes his letter by saying "residents in Silver valley, who have been waiting for more than a decade for schools, parks, sidewalks and other amenities promised in the community plan but still not forthcoming".
I fail to see what this has to do with all that hand-wringing about that pesky stream protection. The Silver Valley land rush debacle seems to be a case of proceeding at a rate faster than our government is capable of managing.
Or possibly something more unprincipled. I guess Mr. Macdougall's point is: we need a new mayor and council.
Mr. Macdougall also stated, "I have absolutely no vested interest in any development" Then I wonder why he is so opposed to stream protection? Does he dislike clean water? Does he have a distaste for salmon? Maybe he just likes to play the 'devils advocate' when he's bored.
Maybe he dreams of reclaiming a title. Fortunately for you, I have no intention of running for mayor of Maple Ridge. So you can be damned sure that my opinions are nothing more than that. You're welcome.