Editor: The June 2010 Ipsos Reid survey has some curious numbers. Of the 8,730 surveys distributed, 5,778 were returned, including 5,483 returned by residents. Oddly, 1,884 addresses had two, or three, or more, responses.
Only being mailed one survey, these 1,884 addresses recruited additional surveys to vote a second and third time. Ipsos Reid identified 3,337 unique residential addresses in the responses. There were 8,759 households in the 2011 census, so 62 per cent of households did not respond.
Those residents who responded "No Change" with respect to Southlands numbered 3,395. Those responding "Some Change" numbered 2,039. The over age 14 population of Tsawwassen is 18,060.
So the results were: 19 per cent "No," 11 per cent "Some" and 70 per cent have no response.
The NIMBY contingent in this community is well organized. Various letter/petition counts have rarely reached 2,000 names, and they always vote. The vast majority of Tsawwassen does not feel strongly either way. Yet this NIMBY group repeatedly portrays itself as the "majority" voice. It is not.
Using anything but the facts, these alarmists rant as if this is publicly-owned land, over which their opinion is paramount. Lost in this debate are the rights of the owner of this privatelyowned land, the one with the most legitimate interest.
The rest of us are concerned, but have no right to dictate the outcome. To suggest the proposal be declined, and then to suggest the farming options be severely limited, is probably illegal; it is certainly immoral.
The owner should be unfettered in his discretion of what and how to farm. If this development is declined, we should prepare for a thoroughly modern farm, a feedlot, a greenhouse, or a lawsuit.
G.B. (Barry) Brett
