Letter to the Editor -- Morning Star

I thought you might want to put this letter to the editor about the park proposal on your web page. I was hoping to see it appear in the Morning Star, but it looks like the letter won't make it in. Hope you enjoy it. And thanks for all your good work.

Sincerely,

Allan Smith

Much has already been said about the proposed sports complex on Highway 6 and Aberdeen Road, but I’d like to offer my own take on why there’s such a strong, emotional resistance in Coldstream to that proposal.

Most of us know how, one after another, beautiful rural areas are destroyed. Usually, commercial enterprises are proposed as benefits to the community. The motive is profit, but the proposal is portrayed primarily as an effort to meet a need in the community, be it for more shopping, housing, seniors’ care—what have you. Of course, proponents talk forcefully about benefits while doing their best to ignore or minimise the drawbacks. If there’s resistance from the community itself, those who object are often criticised for being selfish “NIMBY’s” or as reactionaries who are against “progress.” Too frequently, legitimate concerns of these people are overlooked or dismissed for the sake of “the greater good.” The proposal is accepted, the project carried out, and the profit made. And project by project, bit by bit, an area once characterised by its natural beauty becomes another example of urban sprawl.

This is a simplified view of what happens, but it describes the basics of how beautiful hometowns are eventually “improved out of existence.” This is why the resistance to the sports complex is so entrenched in Coldstream: many of us see this proposal as the start of the same process that’s damaged so many other communities.

Look at the proposal and what’s gone on so far, and the similarities are obvious. One: The proposal is presented as something to meet public needs. Although it would be publicly funded, this is a commercial enterprise meant to attract business to the area. Two: Although the complex is portrayed as a huge benefit to the community, that portrayal is marred by disregard for hard facts. (For example, much has been made of the need to provide these sports facilities for the sake of children while statistics show that the number of children in the area is shrinking and is forecast to continue shrinking for years.) Three: People in the community who oppose the proposal are sometimes criticised unfairly for being selfish.

All this is bad enough. But what really galls me and, I think, a whole lot of the people around me, is the audacity of this proposal. The people pushing it want us, the residents of Coldstream, to pay to help local businesses exploit the natural beauty of our home by building a facility in Coldstream whose long-term benefits are dubious, whose cost can only be guessed at, and whose presence and functions are bound to detract from the rural beauty and character of our community.

I do wish that local politicians wouldn’t require us to defend our quality of life here against such ridiculous intentions. Most of us living here appreciate what we have and understand that to keep it we must be very careful about how the community grows. That’s why so much goes into crafting the Official Community Plan. If we vote in favour of this park proposal, we’ll show a lack of commitment to careful planning and intelligent development that preserves rural living here. And it will only be a matter of time before Coldstream is just another place that used to be beautiful.

The referendum date is December 15^th. At least I won’t have to agonise over my decision until then.

Allan Smith

********************************************