The Capital Regional District board proposes borrowing $85 million for land assembly, housing, and land banking services, which affects all areas and is governed by Bylaw No. 4552 and Bylaw No. 3.
Is this a Pandora’s Box couched in the pretext of doing good?
Governments and NGOs often portray bad policies as beneficial. For instance, the World Economic Forum suggests that owning nothing and eating bugs can lead to happiness.
Is the CRD genuinely trying to create more housing, or is it a land grab? And if they are sincere, whose land will they ultimately take?
I’m watching the TV series Yellowstone, where the Dutton family fights to protect their land from corporate development that would create low-wage jobs and harm the environment.
People want to escape cities for a better life, but this affects rural areas. We must keep rural areas rural to preserve our water systems and wildlife.
Governments have neglected the issue of housing for decades, which has led to the current problem. Their solution to this problem is to take on more debt and allow construction in areas that are supposed to be protected. Unfortunately, their proposed solution is being forced upon us.
In Victoria, the previous mayor thought cutting down protected trees for bike lanes was a good idea, as bicycles are supposed to protect trees from pollution. Does this make any sense?
My advice is to question all government proposals and make them truthfully explain their intentions in language we can all comprehend. Until that happens, I, for one, oppose these bylaws.
Helene Harrison
Shirley
ALSO READ: CRD’s decision to skip referendum raises concerns