Letter: Resident satisfaction survey not ‘laudable’

Why spend tax dollars to find out what is already known?

Re: Be wary of  ‘political’ survey questions, Your View, Oak Bay News Oct. 21

I would like to congratulate the writer on his knowledgeable, well-written article. However while I agree with almost all of the content, “laudable” is not the right word to describe council’s resident satisfaction survey effort.

Council should not spend tax dollars to find out what is already known. Satisfaction is why most of us live here and why developers want to build us out. An expensive survey has already determined resident priorities: replacing and repairing infrastructure and keeping taxes in check.

What really requires resolving is, are residents satisfied with being all but shut out of the discussion on future development? Are they ever going to get a say on whether they want to allow Oak Bay lots to continue to be over-built and over-paved? Do they want a lot of infill businesses to be built next to them that are causing problems elsewhere and are mainly untaxed?

There are developments that may be acceptable but so far they have received little attention; perhaps this because they are less profitable.

Council has been developing a Residential Infill Strategy for some time now, as its main implementation objective. Open house meetings were recently held at the University of Victoria and publicized as, “starting the infill conversation.” At the meetings the Official Community Plan resident survey results were presented that were obtained in one of the misleading ways the article explains. In this case by first assuring residents there would be no impact on them, then asking would they then agree with a whole range of densification housing choices in single-family neighbourhoods.

This commitment however was left out of the UVic presentation. Only the pro-development statistics were presented, as proof of what the majority of the community wants. This omission was convincingly pointed out and it was clear at both packed meetings that infill development was certainly a far cry from what almost all of the residents attending wanted.

It is also disturbing that in the OCP committee meetings it was stated time and time again that the resident survey results would be only a very small part of the resident input process, however this data now is being presented as the main focus, minus the no-impact commitment.

Plebiscite anyone?

Anthony Mears

Oak Bay

 

 

Just Posted

Swimmer halts journey across Strait of Juan de Fuca after hypothermia sets in

Susan Simmons swam for eight-and-a-half hours in 9 C choppy waters

Opposing views clash over removal of Royal Oak Golf Course from ALR

Golf course not ideal for farming, says report

Oak Bay man designer behind Canucks’ retro jersey

Jeremie White was 20 years old when he told Canucks assistant GM Brian Burke he had a design

PHOTOS: Tour de Victoria takes off

1,800 cyclists took off in the Ryder Hesjedal’s Tour de Victoria for a city-wide loop

‘Hard on water:’ Smoke not the only long-range effect of wildfires

The project began more than 10 years ago after southern Alberta’s 2003 Lost Creek fire

Five things to do in Greater Victoria this weekend

Puppy yoga, horses, cars, water guns and more make up this weekend’s list of events to see

B.C. VIEWS: Genuine aboriginal rights can be misused and discredited

Camp Cloud one of long line of protests falsely asserting title

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to march in Montreal’s Pride parade

Trudeau will end the day in his home riding of Papineau

Vancouver Whitecaps give up late goal in 2-2 draw with New York Red Bulls

Four of Vancouver’s next five games are at home

RCMP looking for missing Duncan teen

Dallas Macleod, 18, was last seen on Aug. 10

Most Read