Letter: Infill development or empty houses?

Tasteful development welcome over absentee landowners

Re: Infill will weaken Oak Bay’s Character, Oak Bay News, Letters, July 1

No doubt infill development is definitely a delicate and touchy issue, but we have to trust that it will be been done tastefully, and if that means increasing our housing diversity, then I am all for it.

Duplexes, triplexes, lane-way houses, etc., exist for those who cannot own or do not wish to own a home.

If we looked at infill development through a familial lens, which means more housing options, more families could live in Oak Bay, and if new families would add “noise,” well then I guess I’m guilty of this: I’ve contributed to both noise and population increase with my family of three boys.

Furthermore, such ramblings as increased population would create “…less community cohesiveness and more crime.”

Really?  If infill development means more families can live in Oak Bay, or even come back (to help or even receive help from their parents raising the children, and the grandparents can stay in the community), great; family equals community, so the more families, the stronger the community.

Finally, what’s becoming very apparent is wealthy people buying a home, demolishing it, dumping upwards of a million into it, or more, and then living in it half of the year, or less.  Do these residents contribute to the “cohesiveness” of our community?

I’ll take tasteful infill development over absentee landowners any day.

W. Moore

Oak Bay