Editor:
If our Burnaby council was so sure that removing 21 acres from our parkland was such a great idea, why didn't they have a referendum to seek the views of the Burnaby residents?
The alternative approval process is flawed in that 10 per cent of citizen in Burnaby must submit letters of opposition via the mailbox, city hall or the four libraries located in Burnaby. No electronic options are available. The vote to reject the removal of 21 acres of parkland must be at least 16,250.
The last election in Burnaby in 2022 only 32,251 votes were cast. That is a total of 19.7 per cent of Burnaby eligible voters. Yet more than half of the total vote from the last election has to take the effort to obtain an alternative approval process form and then submit it.
I believe the current city council has its own agenda and wants to push the removal of parkland from the citizens of Burnaby. Remember if this goes through, what is there to stop this council from removing your neighbourhood park?
Fred Halldorson
Editor:
While I am against the conversion of a large portion of Foreshore Park into a “GRO” facility, for a variety of reasons, including the likelihood of severe unintended consequences for the Fraser River ecosystem, I am totally against the manner in which this proposal is being presented to residents and voters of this community.
The necessity of voting the measure down rather than putting it to a reasonable democratic process such as a referendum strikes me as sleight of hand, very much like negative-option merchandising ― a morally indefensible practice used mostly by entities such as governments and major corporations to put one over on the voter or consumer.
While negative-option merchandising may be an acceptable practice in business, as a tool of government and its agents it is undemocratic and should be prohibited.
Thomas Hasek
