Editor:
Re: 'Garden' homeowners should have seen this vote coming, Community Comment, Sept. 13
Steve Graham's recent article needs some clarification.
Yes, the Marina Garden development plans were never discussed in the weeks prior to the November 2011 municipal election. The only thing the residents were aware of was that there was site preparation (additional sand was to be pumped in from the Fraser River) happening during the winter months.
Development plans were unknown at the time of the election but had we known what Polygon was going to propose at a workshop on May 15, 2012, I doubt very many residents of Marina Garden would have voted for any Delta council candidate who supported the Polygon proposal.
Graham calls the Polygon proposal/application a "Modification Application" where in reality the proposal was almost a complete obliteration of the C.D.98A Development Plans and the Restrictive Covenant BK 006752.
These promises/agreements were signed in 1996 and although we expected them to be adhered to, it's fair to expect some adjustments considering the time lapse. With the exception of the density limitations, all other features of the 1996 agreements were eliminated. A strong argument could be made to show that the density limits for the undeveloped areas have been increased.
During the 14 months leading up to the vote by council on the Polygon application, a great deal of effort was made to inform the residents of all aspects related to the application. Through the neighbourhood newsletter, The Outlook, in local meetings, in letters to the local newspapers and to council members, efforts were made to explain why the Polygon application should have been rejected.
The application was approved by four council members who chose to support Polygon and reject the wishes of the majority of the Marina Garden residents.
Marina Garden and the community of Ladner lost because:
1. The "process" is heavily weighted in favour of the developer.
2. The residents of Marina Garden never got the opportunity to have a public meeting with Polygon.
3. The open public hearing was a joke. Polygon "stacked " the first night of the hearing. Was that move legal? Probably. Was it ethical? Very questionable.
4. The residents each got five minutes to state their case while Polygon got a number of lengthy opportunities to meet with council, civic committees and municipal staff.
5. Our requests to meet with individual council members were ignored (except for councillors Sylvia Bishop and Ian Paton, both who rejected the application). At least one councillor had a meeting with a Polygon representative to hear the developer's sales pitch.
6. Explanations as to why 1.5 hectares of public green space had to be given to the developer have never be adequately answered.
7. The chance for a fair and just compromise never happened.
8. Had the opportunity of meetings involving council, municipal staff, Mr. Chan, Polygon and a selection of Marina Garden residents ever taken place it's possible that a fair and just compromise would have resulted.
The Marina Garden neighbourhood was never opposed to development but it was totally opposed to the density proposed, the types and heights of buildings, the "alleyways," the limited parking and the loss of public green space.
Don't worry, as far as Marina Garden is concerned, the three councillors and Mayor Lois Jackson will probably not receive many votes in the 2014 municipal election.
The Marina Garden residents did not get a fair and just hearing.
Stan Lawson
