Dear Editor:
While Mr. Franks and I will have to differ on the need for and merits 10 of the Maison seniors care facility, I write to challenge his harsh and inflammatory comments about West Vancouver staff and council (letter published May 4).While it could always be improved, the process that preceded the Maison decision was exhaustive. Residents were given multiple opportunities to address staff and Councilin formal and informal settings (including visits to the neighbourhood). The design review committee considered the proposal on two occasions. Staff spent countless hours bending over backwards to ensure that residents' questions were answered. Hundreds of pages of correspondence were received and reviewed. Council sought and obtained answers to all of the key questions posed by Mr. Franks. There is simply no basis for his assertion that council "didn't care" about these questions. Far from being ignored, the residents were central to the process.
In the end, council voted 6-1 to approve the project. Each councillor who voted in favour gave detailed, thoughtful reasons for their support. Regardless, Mr. Franks dismisses the decision as corrupt and motivated solely by money. Perhaps it is easier for those who fall on the losing side of such contentious debates to oversimplify the issues and demonize the other side. It seems to happen all too often in local politics of late, particularly over development issues.
The truth, however, is more nuanced. Decisions such as this are difficult and rest on the balancing of various important, competing interests. Reasonable people can and do reasonably differ on such matters.
As representatives of the public, we do our best to act in the best interests of the community. We are not infallible. Feel free to disagree with merits of our decisions. But please try to keep the debate civil.
Craig Cameron
Councillor
