In saying that people who want to eliminate Saanich’s EDPA law must make a strong case to council, it seems that Paul Thorkellson was not aware that a strong case has already been made.
For example, Anita Bull and associated property owners presented examples of errors showing incompetence by Saanich staff and of probable hardship to elderly people, Ted Lea presented biological and botanical evidence to council, and I have written extensively to council members identifying the false claims and hypocrisy that the law is founded on.
I have now written to Mr. Thorkelsson to inform him of the false claims about species peddled by Saanich staff and of their hypocrisy, inform him of their errors in thinking, and educate him on the range of species.
The mayor has confirmed that a consultant has been hired to look into the economics of the law. But the debate is not economics per se – it is over the morality of life.
On one side are eco-activists on staff and council, whose negative view of humans leads them to try to motivate partial confiscation of property, supposedly in the name of species diversity but excluding the diversity created by recent human activity, and exempting the results of farming by tribal people several centuries ago. (They created the Garry oak meadows that activists worship, by felling trees with fire, to grow more plants and animals to harvest.)
Those eco-activists callously dumped the cost and time of evaluation of properties on the backs of property owners, instead of following provincial guidelines to get their boots on the ground and look. Their work was so sloppy that houses and paved driveways were classified as environmentally sensitive.
On the other side are people building and earning, providing shelter for humans, and planting and nurturing. They are being harmed by eco-activists.
I urge Mr. Thorkelsson to examine the evidence against the EDPA that has already been presented to council, and grill his staff on what they are doing to honest people and why.