Editor: I carefully watch the Southlands saga, which is over 40 years old now. I find that over a short period of time the people being affected seem to easily forget all the original reasons why and how the developer wanted to develop the Southlands. So, here's a small refresher.
The developer said the supposed increase in traffic on our only main road would not really increase because the development was being built close to the town core so people could walk, not drive. Yet in the
latest development proposal the housing is being shifted all the way to Boundary Bay, again with only one roadway, so people will have no choice but drive.
The developer spent a great deal of money and time to try to show the land was not at all farmable and now he wants to give it to Delta so we, the people, can farm it. Who's going to do that and how much is it going to cost us as Delta would have to administer everything? Doesn't sound free to me. It seems like another complete reversal, which seems to be a repeating
process. To openly not care about changing the quality of life for the residents of Boundary Bay, by pushing the proposed development as far away from the town core as possible, I find completely alarming and disheartening.
To date, the real issue of the water table, which is extremely high on this flood plain and which is acknowledged in the Sept. 20 issue of the Optimist, is being pushed to the side. The high salt water table causes the land not to be farmable.
If, for any reason, the Southlands is compacted the way the developer needs it to be to build up the land, it will only force the water table back towards the Bay and the residents will more than likely suffer for the years to come, with probable lawsuits coming against the developer and the Corporation of Delta.
Please don't forget all the constant changes that are taking place to try to sway people to think this proposal is a good thing. As I said before, change is inevitable but not all change is for the good.
Rod Maksym
