Editor, The News:
Re: A moment to reconsider the Albion flats (Letters, Feb. 25).
It is remarkable how misleading eloquence can be, as Charles Ellman’s critique of the development of the flats demonstrates to us. The title is cleverly reminiscent of the expression “A moment to remember” often used in sombre remembrances of loved ones lost, suggesting that what follows requires deep reverence and introspection, which it does. Too bad it holds less reverence for the facts, and for the practical realities of population growth. Who can dispute the vital tie that every one of us has to nature and the land that supports the food we eat? Who can deny that we are losing local habitats at alarming rates, not to mention the charming cast of creatures that inhabit them? Is there not a very real hazard to spending too much and erecting too many malls? Yes, and, yes. Beneath the thin veneer of wisdom and moral superiority pervading this article lie other precious species on the brink of extinction: balance, fairness, and common sense. In one breath, Mr. Ellman is decrying the shortage of food and farmland. Council is merely proposing to save 1.25 acres of farmland. In another breath, he is proposing that the flats, with all of their biodiversity, ought to be preserved as parkland. In fact, the entire second half of this article vividly and descriptively argues for two simultaneous uses for the Albion flats – presumably in parallel universes. The reality is that the flats cannot be both active farmland and sanctuary to mink, bear, and deer. Farming equipment would ensure that in a hurry. Albion will either be developed or it will remain farmland, one or the other. The other certainty is that, as long as there are humans, communities will inevitably grow. I also love nature, but somehow, Mr. Ellman, you have managed to take an already crowded and complex issue and make it even more so by adding an additional option that is not even being considered – not exactly solving the problem, right? Not even the ALC favours the flats as parkland. The flats is a shadow of its former “wild” self – first, converted to farmland, then blithely altered into an unwieldy mixture of farm/swampland by development overhead. What sort of a park would this land make? Mr. Ellman, you mention how slogans to broaden the tax base are contrived, insufficiently questioned, and prone to brainwashing, and yet, you do not find it necessary to explain why. How is it that, unlike all surrounding municipalities, Maple Ridge does not need industry, nor do we need substantially more income from commerce, which means branching outside the core? Can you explain how this is? Please send this eager reader your business analysis, if indeed you are going to talk business. How is it immaterial that any contributions the Kwantlen Nations make to shopping will not support the local economy, and that it is material that people seek foreign-owned big-box shopping. In the broader scheme, would it not present a net benefit to the environment to keep the thousands of vehicles leaving town, in town, and to develop the relatively small portion of cleared land that would make that possible? What impact would this step have on emissions, not only for Maple Ridge but the surrounding communities? There are many ways to be stewards of nature, and they aren’t always the most obvious. Is not citing the 2017 figures for shopping demand just a little shortsighted, when, realistically, by the time any new projects are completed, we will have moved on to a new figure, spanning the next decade and beyond, which calls for nearly double that number? Taking a portion of land out of the ALR would enable this town to service its needs for decades to come, which is a realistic timeline for any planning program, and, ironically enough, would take the pressure off land elsewhere – including farmland. The problem is, as it always is with the perennial critic – not just ones of social and economic change. The critic may pick fault with the efforts others make to address issues without sensing the need to produce any viable options in return. Perhaps, that is part of their appeal. They are weightless, unencumbered by the weightiness and the real constraints the rest of us experience, day-to-day. The reality remains that we live in a growing community, and unless we are prepared to apologize for the affront that is our presence here and abandon this town for the mink and herons, we need to engage in some real planning. Mr. Ellman, you criticize the name “Residents For Smart Shopping.” As someone affiliated with the group, I must admit that the name has always struck me as bit crude and pretentious. What is likely less obvious is why individuals, such as myself, get involved with big business and imperfect alliances. It is precisely so that our very valid concerns for services and infrastructure are not trampled on by seasoned lobbyists who would otherwise run roughshod over anyone trying to broach the subject of change in this town. We do not have the privileges of the critic who never has to do anything. They merely have to oppose.
James Ruthven
Maple Ridge