Editor:
Last Friday’s edition included five pieces about the casino, and while I respect the rights of the writers to hold their stated beliefs and thank them for presenting their views, I believe only one of them got it right. Let me elaborate:
M. Cheney’s letter thanking a pair of councillors for voting against casino should not have been so inclusive. Do not project that the speakers at the public hearing represent the thoughts of all of Ladner’s and Delta’s populace. The writer’s apparent belief that they spoke for the area’s total population is ludicrous.
The same comment applies to the statement in Tom Morrison’s letter. The mayor and councillors heard the strong opposition of the majority of the meeting’s speakers. Nothing more, nothing less. The writer should not extrapolate the speaker’s opposition to be the all-inclusive public.
Nicholas Wong’s Community Comment column stated Delta council heard the community’s strong opposition, yet repeat what they heard was the strong opposition of some of the meeting’s speakers.
Naomi Miller’s letter claims no argument can sanction casino approval with the knowledge available. What a jaw dropping statement. She seems to believe that only her interpretation of the available knowledge is correct. In her world, it appears that Las Vegas, Reno, Monte Carlo and the thousands of casinos throughout the world would not exist. She is welcome to her opinion but she should not so arrogantly project that her belief/value set is the only one that matters.
Only editor Ted Murphy summarizes what happened at these meetings in an objective and non-bias manner when he states: “Based on the number of people who spoke and the applause after said speakers, there’s little doubt there were more casino opponents than supporters at last week’s public hearing at the Ladner Community Centre, but does that mean more Deltans oppose the project than support it?” I contend the editor’s words are the only credible summation that can be taken away from the hearing.
I believe the letters and column from the other four writers expressed their point of view and not the worldwide view they conveyed.
Robert W. Craig
