Unpublished letters to the Editor

Unpublished letters to the Editor   Ambler Response I can’t help but respond to Mr. Ambler’s misleading comments made in the paper on October 14th that “they (the electorate) can choose the old guard, that’s been there 15 years and got us where we got us, or it’s time for new leadership.” Mr. Ambler, you ARE the old guard that “got us where we got us”! You have served on council for 6 years. Your “leadership” resulted not only in the waste of $70,000 on a study for a wooden bicycle bridge that will never be built but also facilitated the bicycle lobby with “expert support” from City staff. You tabled a motion and voted in favour of a motion “to send any Council member that is willing and able to participate to all such conferences”.  And when outraged citizens and taxpayers spoke out your public response was that “There are people in this community who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” You “led the charge” for huge wage increases for Regional District Directors, a position you have held as a representative of our City. Your public justification was “If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.” You shunned the Mayor’s proposal to create a Financial Advisory Committee at no cost to the City or its taxpayers. A committee that would provide valuable professional input and insight to City staff and Council. And your response? The proposal was “just window dressing which doesn’t meet anyone’s needs.” And finally, although you refuse to state your public position on Maple Pool, one can only assume that you are...

All Candidates & Responses

The responses of candidates set out below are the clearest and most accurate available from any source at the present time. The Comox Valley Record recently polled all candidates running in this election on a number of issues.  Unfortunately the Record’s question about Maple Pool was fundamentally and fatally flawed, resulting in a very confusing mishmash of responses making it very difficult to understand which candidates stand where. The Record asked each candidate to answer with a simple “yes” or “no” to the question “As opposed to spending money on a lawsuit, would you approve of taxpayer dollars being spent helping to bring Maple Pool Campground into compliance with zoning regulations”? Unfortunately, that question is akin to the famous question “Have you stopped beating your wife?”  That is so because it is really two separate questions rolled into one, together with an assumption which in fact is false.  The false assumption is that spending taxpayers’ money on rezoning is necessary in order for the lawsuit to be terminated.  The fact is that rezoning is completely unnecessary because the existing zoning does not apply to this property, and therefore there is no reason why public funds should be expended. So a candidate cannot answer “yes” or “no” to this compound double question without misrepresenting his/her position.  An affirmative response indicates the candidate is willing to spend public funds on a project which is totally unnecessary; if the candidate answers “no”, he/she indicates an unwillingness to terminate the lawsuit. We also forced the candidates to essentially answer “yes” or “no”.  But our question was a simple one, not a compound question. ...