Re: Infill argument doesn’t work, Oak Bay News, Letters, June 3
Given word limitations on letters submitted, it can be difficult to provide a complete overview of the points made. Perhaps this contributed to Anthony Mears’ misunderstandings and resulting comments.
The point of the letter was to suggest continued dialogue, and review, as the OCP is implemented. Of course there should be regulatory considerations, reviews on impact to the municipality’s infrastructure and fair, responsible taxation on any development. It’s not about choosing which bylaws to follow, it’s about creating an opportunity for meaningful discussion on an issue where the current regulatory framework may no longer be in keeping with the municipality’s or its residents’ needs.
It is clear given Mr. Mears’ credentials, he should be well aware society evolves and needs therefore change. I’m simply offering a view that we should welcome that dialogue, not stick our heads in the sand and hope the issues disappear. For that, I applaud Oak Bay’s efforts in developing an Official Community Plan, now let’s work through the good and bad and look to make it workable for Oak Bay.
As to blanket statements regarding the ethics of Oak Bay residents should they have unregulated suites of some kind, everyone has a story – let’s hear them before casting such quick judgement.
Kevin Hall
Oak Bay