The Editor,

Re: 鈥淧lan to redevelop old motel site too dense, Pettigrew says,鈥� Feb. 22.

READ ALSO: Plan to redevelop former 性视界传媒 motel site too dense, says Coun. Pettigrew

I strongly support the opposition Councillor Steven Pettigrew has voiced to the redevelopment proposal for 8205 King George Blvd.

Does the applicant have a plan to assist the mostly elderly people on low income whom the project would displace and who probably would have to look for accommodation far away?

In being the sole council member to vote against the proposed development, Pettigrew bravely stated, 鈥淚 will not be responsible for these peoples鈥� misfortune,鈥� and 鈥淭his is not a community-building environment.鈥�

The newspaper story states that, 鈥渁s part of the densification project, the applicant has committed to provide a 鈥榗ommunity benefit鈥� to the city of $93,600.鈥�

This smells like an attempted bribe!

Further along the newspaper report continues, 鈥淭o allay the concern that the city parks department has expressed about the pressure this project will place on existing parks, recreation, and cultural facilities, the applicant has agreed to provide the Parks Department with $145,600.鈥�

The same nasty smell!

Seriously, how can money allay pressure that the influx of people would put on the resources of the area? To allay the pressure of more people, the city needs more space for parks and recreation, not densification.

What has happened to the rest of the members of the Safe 性视界传媒 Coalition who were voted onto council office last fall, partly on the platform of curbing densification and development because the infrastructure 鈥� roads, parks schools, etc. 鈥� was already overstressed?

Many 性视界传媒 residents are frustrated that, for far too long, progress has been measured by economic factors that support the growth model (quantity) rather than by the quality of life (a safe community where people care for each other and for the environment).

John Payne, 性视界传媒