The Editor,
Re: "Hydro project reaches milestone, but farmer says it's a 'nightmare,'" the Now, Jan. 20.
I read with interest Adrian MacNair's article concerning the BC Hydro substation development in Fleetwood.
I appreciate that it is important to be ahead of the game when it comes to providing power for the future and it is difficult to take on a project of this size without upsetting locals.
There is, however, a wider issue. Should a 30 per cent increase in population in Surrey over the next 10 years override just about everything else? In a headlong rush to fill the Lower Mainland with people, are other factors being ignored?
A neighbour told me that he had a 10-hour wait in an emergency room recently and we all notice that traffic is increasingly difficult in urban and city areas during rush hour. The point is, that while Surrey administrators build an empire off of the back of development, other things suffer. Infrastructure does not keep pace and the quality of life of every resident is steadily reduced.
The loss of natural environment in our area is of particular concern. I am not much interested in self-publicity, but felt it necessary to start a blog about the plight of our local eagles nest. Enormous pressure has been put upon Surrey Lake Park next to the Hydro development, and I thought that this should not pass without comment.
Recently, your paper reported that Surrey has lost 20 per cent of its tree canopy over the last 10 years. The ease with which agricultural land is rezoned for development is extraordinary and the carting away of valuable top soil, with the return of a poorer quality replacement after the build is completed, is depressing.
The Lower Mainland is an essential agricultural zone and if in future food is in short supply and cannot easily be imported, it seems unwise to be adding to the problem by increasing population and building over fertile farmland.
Above all else, there is a pretence that Surrey has some far-reaching overall conservation policy and maybe it does on paper, but in reality it appears to be nonexistent.
The number of plants and animals and their diversity is a measure of any conservation policy and there can be no question that wildlife in the Surrey area is in steep decline.
When a developing country behaves in this way we show concern - so, why is it acceptable in the Lower Mainland, which is part of a country renowned and highly regarded elsewhere for its natural beauty?
Stephen Bolwell, Surrey