Dear editor,
I must commend you for publishing my letter of Jan, 19, which you titled Union Bay report inaccurate and admitting that your reporter was not at the meeting. That took some courage.
Now, however, I must take issue with your editorial Look beyond rhetoric (Record, Jan. 28).
In the first three sentences you have questioned where truth lies, questioned Union Bay’s reputation as the Friendly Port, referred to “squabbling factions” there, and brought up a “division during the past.”
If ever there was a way to put down the Union Bay public and open up old divisions and ugly emotions, all under the banner of it being about the vice of emotion in politics (what else does your title mean?), I am hard pressed to think of a more effective way of doing it.
Bringing up the issue of KIP, which has nothing to do with the current attempt of the ratepayers of Union Bay to get capable persons on the board of UBID, is euphemistically known in your profession as “fogging the issue.”
That is no help; there is more than enough smoke rising from the UBID board without you adding to it.
In the sixth paragraph, you say “TAG got Messrs. Livesey and Goldswain elected” — implying, it seems, that this was the work of some underhanded, nefarious group with their own private agenda.
Here’s what happened: over the past couple of years a significant and growing number of the UBID ratepayers came to realize that the board was unable to grasp that it wasn’t doing an acceptable job of running UBID and that it was not interested in hearing the public’s concerns. So it was time for change.
Concerned citizens coalesced around a group, which later became known as TAG, that canvassed around for two candidates who would be willing to stand for the two places on the board that were coming up for election and gave them some help in getting information out to the electorate on why they were running.
At the election last April, the citizens of Union Bay elected the two new members, Messrs. Livesey and Goldswain, in a landslide. The remaining “old guard” on the board and their supporters, there weren’t many, were stunned.
Yes, of course it’s a disappointment for the supporters of those who were turfed out, and anger often follows right on the heels of disappointment; that’s how people often behave. That you, as an editor of a local paper, apparently don’t understand this beggars belief.
In the next paragraph you say that Mr. de Jersey “explained” (your word) that TAG was comparing apples and oranges — presumably referring to Union Bay and Deep Bay.
Since you say he explained, your public needs to know his explanation; perhaps he has a valid argument. We have heard this metaphor ad nauseam from Mr. de Jersey and the old guard on the board, but so far we’ve not had an explanation.
The standard of comparison that the “old guard,” including Mr. de Jersey, uses for operating costs, all the while maintaining they are comparing “apples and apples,” is to compare UBID to Comox and Courtenay!
You express “concern about what might happen if TAG (your condescending ‘label’ for new and capable people) gains a majority on the UBID board.”
I would submit that what really matters to the majority of the UBID electorate is that we do get a new majority of such people on the board. Then the UBID board can deal with the realities of the mess UBID is in and go forward from there. W.H. Ellis
Buckley Bay