Letter to the Editor -- Coldstreamernews

I must say I take exception to some of Richard Rolke's recent rants criticizing Coldstream Councillors Garlick and Firman, particularly in response to Councillor Garlick’s recent lament to the Coldstream ratepayers association as 'sounding like a kid'-"....who not liking how the game is going, storms off the field with his ball. Was Garlick elected to represent all of Coldstream or just those he agrees with? Is he saying he knows better than the electorate?"

I have noticed a definite bias in the reporting of the Morningstar in favor of the Coldstream Sports Complex, lashing out at opponents and ignoring the faux pas of its proponents. It comes as no surprise that a privately owned advertiser should consistently take a pro-business and pro-sports line in its editorials and reportage, as it's revenue comes from the business community through advertisements.

No doubt, the Coldstream sports complex would be good for the business and sports communities and it would also provide grist to the Morningstar's sports section. I know for a fact that they are selective about which letters to the editor they publish. As a result, the public at large really only get the Morningstar’s slant on important issues. As far as I am concerned the paper is largely just recycling fodder. Now to the point at hand, Rolke's egregious interpretation of Councillor Garlick's statement.

Although I cannot speak for Councillor Garlick's motives, it was my understanding that he was saying that if the ALR referendum resulted in a majority of the people of Coldstream voting to withdraw the Spicer block from the ALR in order to build a sports complex, he would interpret this as a rejection of the reasons he entered into municipal politics in the first place. That is, to protect the ALR lands within the community [from development] and to preserve the rural character of Coldstream. Whether the public realize it or not, this referendum is not just about a single property proposal but rather it represents the attitude of the community toward the more general issue of maintaining the value and integrity of the ALR within Coldstream or discarding it in favor of economic,demographic and property development to the exclusion of agricultural values. As he said this issue is the 'thin end of the wedge', if we make an exception for the Spicer block, the rest of the agricultural lands are sure to follow, in due course.

Since Councillor Garlick has made it known to the public at large that he is against the removal of high grade agricultural land from the ALR , for the very good reasons he has given, and the electorate nevertheless choose to disregard his position, they have de facto, rejected his values and his advise. As a result he is left with little choice than to honorably resign his services to the community as they have decided to reject his counsel. Clearly his counsel is not valued: so why fight a losing battle with the majority opinion?

After all, how can he thereafter serve Coldstream in good faith when he knows the majority of the community do not support him in the causes he has chosen to champion? I have the greatest admiration for Councillor Garlic for his courageous and principled stand on this issue. He is an excellent man and he surely does not deserve to be slighted in Morningstar editorials.

Moreover, I would hope that Mayor Corner and Councillors Taylor and Williams will have the honour to resign if the electorate choose not to support their destructive, mindless and greedy "We need to grow" community values!

Peter Peto 492 Terrace Drive

Coldstream