Opinion

Seeing both sides of: Stoney Hill roadbuilding plan

The case for

Residents pay taxes to municipalities in exchange for services.

If a majority of homeowners want better access to their properties and are willing to pay for it, the municipality  would be derelict in its duty if it didn’t respond.

This is an attempt to meet an existing need. It only opens the door to future development if that’s what the community wants.

 

The case against

Stoney Hill is one of the most rugged and remote pieces of land on the Cowichan coastline. It is parkland and forestland and secluded properties and it really should remain that way.

Council should have no obligation to improving access to property owners who knew what they were getting into when they bought.

They do have an obligation to protect it for what it is.

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

You might like ...

One last holdup on B.C. railway tracks
 
Employees of Chances officially off the job
 
Time for truth in B.C. treaty talks
Editorial cartoon, Oct. 23, 2013
 
Artists ‘paint’ with fibre
 
‘Social justice’ as student indoctrination

Community Events, October 2014

Add an Event

Read the latest eEdition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Oct 22 edition online now. Browse the archives.