The Editor,
Re: "Rail relocation would 'unlock national treasure,'" the Now letters, Sept. 25.
Letter writer Erik Seiz states that moving the rail location would be five kilometres shorter (three miles) and would give a return on investment. Spending $500 million plus to move a railway that would be five kilometers shorter does not sound like much of an investment to me!
Mr. Seiz states his concerns for the unstable bluffs. I ask where were his concerns for the unstable bluffs when the million-dollar prize homes were being built on it.
He goes on to state his concerns for two bird sanctuaries, bisecting two level crossings, access to public beaches, a boat launch and a de-facto hiking path, but he would feel OK with moving the railway near fish-bearing streams, rivers, agricultural land and possibly bisecting other roadways so that they may unlock a 12-mile national treasure.
Well, Mr. Seiz, the national treasure has been there for over a hundred years and included the railway. The railway is part of the history and atmosphere of White Rock and Crescent Beach. The railway did not move to where the people were, the people moved to where the railway is. Did these people not see the railway crossings when they drove into these areas to purchase their homes and do their due diligence?
Spending $500 million so beach-goers, hikers, tourists and rich boat owners don't have to wait a few minutes for a train to pass to get to their boat launch/beach does not add up.
If Mr. Seiz's true concerns are about emergency response, then a cheaper overpass/underpass would do, but if Mr.
Seiz and the rest of the Crescent Beach/White Rock home owners still feel the railway should be moved, then maybe they should all be special-assessed the costs.
In my opinion, it is all about property values and NIMBYism.
J. Edwards, Cloverdale