I refer to the Nov. 10 article referencing the Saanich council ratifying their decision to rescind the current EDPA bylaw. The article negates to mention some key facts.
The majority of the speakers may or may not have been against rescinding the EDPA, but it should be noted that many of the speakers supporting the EDPA (and not rescinding it) were not even from Saanich but from other municipalities. In addition, most had never come to a meeting regarding this matter in the past. I know, because I have been to all of them for the past three years. You get to know the faces.
It is my opinion that most people that were holding protest cards in support of the current EDPA had no idea what this matter is truly all about, and were asked to come by friends or family simply to show support to keep the EDPA in numbers. Unfortunately, I cannot verify this with certainty.
Perhaps the article should have mentioned that the majority of the speakers against the current EDPA are property owners affected by it, and those speakers who where against rescinding the EDPA do not have properties affected by this bylaw.
This could have been verified by some simple cross checking. It is required that the addresses of the speakers be stated by the speaker. This fact was evident to anyone attending the meeting who is truly familiar with the issue, and who have personally lived through the painful process of dealing with the EDPA bylaw since its implementation in 2012.
My husband and I congratulate the council in their decision. No one is saying there should not be an EDPA. The EDPA was a good idea gone terribly wrong. The way forward they have chosen is sensible, all things considered. Your article was lacking some key facts. This type of reporting is not helpful to anyone.
Brenda MacAskill
Saanich