Kathie Konarzewski thinks I should “be careful to get …facts correct before voicing an opinion” but illogically concludes that my objections to a new library (nobody yet knows where) indicate I don't support the existing library. My letter was an objection not just to the proposed new library but to the large unjustified expenditures approved by council, which will entail considerable tax increases.
There are financial limits and even well-off people have budgets and limited disposable income.
But basing support for any particular amenity on a very limited survey constructed as a choice of stated options is unrepresentative and meaningless, and comparable to asking for a preference among being shot, hanged or poisoned. It doesn't imply consent for any option given.
But I appreciate any information I can obtain as to the influences that bear on decisions made by council and the mayor. Where do these ideas come from and how are they finalized?
For instance, an article in the (Gazette, Dec. 17) citing the Build St. Albert department was most interesting. I had never heard of such a department. What exactly is its relationship to the St. Albert Chamber of Commerce? This corporation's statement refers to St. Albert's projected “unprecedented growth, doubling by 2042.”
St. Albert is a small city, not a financial hub or industrial centre, and has no special environmental features like a large lake or large scenic river. What is the basis for the projection of a population surge?
It seems there is a lot of input on the part of unelected bodies and individuals in decisions that will affect St. Albert citizens. We need more information and a better consensus process. Bogus surveys are not good enough. We may end up at the mercy of international finance, or privatization and user pay.
Doris Wrench Eisler, St. Albert
