Re: Grand visions require deep pockets, Nov. 20.
Mr. Upward’s letter is a rehash of the same flawed opinion we’ve already read, that the Group of Four “saved the taxpayers $750,000”. They also used that high degree of business savvy to spare taxpayers millions of dollars of future new tax revenue. It is politically convenient but deliberately misleading for Mr. Upward and others to persistently ignore the substantial revenue side of this agreement.
Accounting for both the expenses and revenues together, the original Sandown project was expected to break even by 2017 and thereafter perpetually return $347,000 of fresh tax revenue to the District each year.
As Councillor [Ted] Daly noted on his Facebook page, the prospects of reviving this proposal at the time of its cancellation were very slim indeed. With this admission, the Group of Four revealed the real scope of their financial blunder and their callous disregard for the many benefits this proposal would have provided. Luckily, for them and us, Mr. Randall returned.
Voters should also remember there was substantial public support for the first proposed Sandown agreement. Furthermore, if the Group of Four was really looking out for the whole community and saving money was really a priority, they would have pursued the generous offer from the Farmlands Trust to manage and fully fund the reclamation.
Mr. Upward’s account cannot be seen as an attempt to inform but rather an exercise in political axe-grinding through the suppression of information.
There are indeed many things to remember when casting votes next year. Voters will need to use their critical thinking skills to sort through a persistent flow of misinformation from people who are not necessarily representing the community’s best interests.