LETTER: White Rock councillor says her perspective was overlooked

I am writing to express my disappointment with the and the imposed housing targets. The article fails to include my full statement, which provides crucial context and insight into why I supported the mandatory amendments. Omitting this statement presents a skewed perspective that does not accurately represent council’s collective stance or the complex reasoning behind our decisions.

My statement was: “If we do not approve these recommendations, this may result in further actions required by the province to complete the interim Housing Needs Report such as the province taking over and putting up housing wherever they like. Approving these recommendations means White Rock retains the power to build where we see fit. So as a White Rock city councillor, I will be supporting these recommendations as I feel this is what’s best for White Rock.



” It is important to emphasize that none of us on council are pleased with these mandated changes. In fact, I can assure you that not one of the 188 cities in British Columbia is thrilled to be forced to make these amendments to their bylaws and Official Community Plan. However, the reality is that we are mandated by the province and have no choice but to comply.

The story singled out councillors who voiced their opposition without balancing the story with why the rest of us, including myself, approved these mandates. The narrative should reflect the broader context and the difficult position in which councils across the province find themselves: compelled to follow legislation while advocating for their communities’ best interests. I hope future coverage will offer a more balanced view, presenting both dissenting and supportive voices to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of complex council decisions.

Thank you for considering my feedback..