Sooke council continues to lose credibility
Letter by Gail Hall to the Sooke News Mirror October 8, 2003

Editor:

Sooke council and staff continue to support decisions which leave their credibility in tatters.

Not wishing to turn over too many ancient stones, four recent issues come to mind.

First, there is the application for an apartment/assisted living complex on Goodmere Road behind Village Markets. Never mind that it contravenes both the Official Community Plan and the Harbour and Basin Plan, but more importantly perhaps, it should be considered in terms of today's argument as to why sewers are necessary.

This application has received third reading with an on-site treatment plant and field deemed acceptable to council and staff in the event that sewers do not happen.

If an on-site treatment plant is acceptable so close to the harbour, how can residents with such plants be forced to disconnect and hook up to the sewer?

Second, council and staff had no objection to a subdivision application to create an additional lot at the end of Possession Point Road with the building setback from the harbour reduced from 15m to 7.5m. The new residence will be served by a septic tank and field on a lot of 1,300 square metres. This was accepted by all members of council.

However, should you happen to land in the specified area, even if you reside miles from the harbour, your septic tank or treatment plant and field will be deemed unacceptable and you will be required to hook up to the sewers.

Double standard? You bet!

Third, remember the two informational meetings held in July, when the public was urged to come and present their questions on the sewer proposal. Mayor Evans told the first meeting that all questions would be recorded to be answered in September. Question after question was met with stony silence. It was an embarrassing waste of time.

In September we were told that those who had asked the questions would have answers mailed to them. Now we understand that answers will not be forthcoming at all. The assumption is either that council does not have the answers, or that there is no wish to share them with the public.

And finally there is that wonderful survey for which we paid $8,500, and which the research group stated was "to be very beneficial to the district as it will assist in identifying groups and areas of strong support and opposition within the targeted community."

The public has received a brief outline of survey results. However, the real meat of the survey is for the eyes and ears of council and staff alone. Even though residents gave their time and privacy to this thing, they will be unable to study the resulting "spin." As stated in the proposal "Pollara will be available to consult on the development of materials that are to be shared with the media."