Re: 鈥淎nybody want a pool?鈥� editorial, May 23.
The sarcastic editorial on siting a redeveloped Crystal Pool was unhelpful. This $80-million project should have received more than cursory attention from the start, when Central Park was assumed to be the best location.
The newspaper should have been asking the important questions rather than relying on press releases from the city parks department. There are many.
Why wasn鈥檛 there a referendum on such a major expenditure? Why don鈥檛 city-led projects, such as this one, have to go through the same rigorous process that private developers do with neighbourhood consultation being a key component? Why was $2聽million spent on design before establishing fundamentals such as the best location?
Why did the city sign off in 2017 on a 35-year lease extension for the arena site managed by RG Properties without any public consultation? Why did recent talks with RG Properties to renegotiate this lease fall through, when this city-owned land is the preferred location for a new pool, with advantages such as shared energy costs and no destruction of green space?
The editorial amounts to a dismissal of the hard work of citizens to get this runaway project right. The North Park neighbourhood in particular has been asking the right questions on behalf of taxpayers and neighbourhoods. That鈥檚 more than Times 91原创 reporting has accomplished.
D.A. Gotto
Victoria
