Dear Editor,
RE: LETTER: Are Surrey’s issues become Maple Ridge’s?, March 29, The News
Much of the townhouse development was started prior to the present council. What happened to the plan for housing to allow aging in place? Townhouses do not qualify.
Many points raised were noted by the-then corporate and financial planner Paul Gill, reported on in The News 10 years ago, Jan. 3, 2014.
“For every burb built, the city pays,” and “Maple Ridge needs to change how it grows. To keep sprawling doesn’t make economic sense for taxpayers” and those expenses go on for years – in fact, decades.
City planner know how to build healthy communities. But, I respectfully submit, many developers seek to change those plans to anything that will be most lucrative for them. They buy up cheaper property on the outskirts, or outside the urban boundary, then lobby to have the Official Community Plan changed, offering amenity bonuses in exchange for the city allowing more units on the site.
As the good professor said: “Everything is good for some, bad for others.”
More units result in more street parking, creating safety hazards for pedestrians and children at play. Also challenging for emergency vehicles. As well, as previously mentioned, it increases the expense to taxpayers for years to come.
It is long been the best time this city should be saying: “This is what we want, now who will build it?” rather than developers saying: “This is what we want, let us do it now.”
B. Rolls, Whonnock
ANOTHER LETTER: Hammond recreation redevelopment is not an improvement