Haldi Road Struggle – Throwing mud at the residents
Monday, January 7, 2013 @ 3:44 AM
By Peter Ewart
It is one of the oldest tricks when you are losing an argument. Throw mud at the character of your opponents.
Examples of this technique can be found in editorials and columns published over the holidays in a Prince George and a Vancouver news outlet.
Who has been demonized? The residents of Haldi Road, a small residential neighborhood on the edge of Prince George who are against the establishment of a private addiction recovery centre in the midst of their close-knit, semi-rural neighborhood.
Through hard work, the residents have achieved a lot. As it stands now, 96% of the property owners in the neighborhood are against the proposed rezoning and in support of maintaining the rural residential character of the neighborhood. Many Prince George residents agree with them. The struggle of the residents was recently bolstered by a BC Supreme Court ruling which found that, in allowing the Recovery Centre to proceed, the City of Prince George was being inconsistent with its own Official Community Plan, and, consequently, in violation of the Local Government Act.
Nonetheless, this broad support and court ruling did not stop an editor in the Prince George publication from writing a piece claiming that the opposition of the Haldi Road residents to the Recovery Centre is somehow linked to the murders of the missing women on the downtown east side of Vancouver. In another editorial by the same editor, the claim was also made that the reason why “sex trade workers” on the street in Prince George were not being “saved” was, once again, because of the attitudes of Haldi Road residents.
In a similar vein, the Vancouver columnist wrote two columns in which he, too, tried to link the activity of the Haldi Road residents in opposing the Centre and the murdered women of the downtown Eastside, as well as the Highway of Tears.
It is anyone’s guess as to what other crimes these writers, in future editorials and columns, may try to associate with the Haldi Road residents. But it appears that the sky is the limit.
However, the question needs to be asked – just what would these writers have to say about a residential neighborhood that happened to oppose a bottle recycling depot being set down in its midst? That the residents somehow support and are responsible for global warming?
What would they have to say about a residential neighborhood that opposes a wood waste burning plant, or a pawn shop, or a fire hall being established on a vacant lot right smack in the middle? That the neighborhood is somehow anti-forest industry or anti-business, or in the case of opposition to the fire hall, aids and abets arson and arsonists?
The simple fact is municipalities have zoning regulations precisely so that development does not happen willy-nilly and at cross-purposes in neighborhoods and sectors of the city. However, following the logic of these newspaper commentators, addiction recovery centres can and should be plunked down wherever the proponents and city hall want irrespective of zoning regulations, previous city planning and the wishes of residents. So why have zoning regulations and an Official Community Plan at all? Let arbitrary rules and anarchy reign. When residents complain, smear them.
Drawing a causal link between the opposition of Haldi Road residents to a private Recovery Centre in their neighborhood and the murdered women is an inflammatory and false argument. Such ridiculous logic comes from what might be called the “bicycle pump” school of editorial comment. How that school works is that when an argument is weak or has many holes, the writer pumps it up using hyperbole, misleading and false comparison, and logical fallacies of various kinds.
Whatever the intentions of the PG editor and the Vancouver columnist, the result is to obscure and ignore some key facts. These include the following:
(1) In regards to the Recovery Centre, the mayor, city hall and the proponents have badly bungled the entire rezoning, planning and consultation process and have sowed unnecessary divisions in the community as a result;
(2) The residents of Haldi Road have valid and compelling arguments, and have every right to oppose the rezoning of their neighborhood;
(3) The provincial government has failed to provide leadership or to bring together the many groups and parties who have long been working to establish a much-needed addiction recovery centre for women in the region; and
(4) We need reform at the municipal level of government that will give urban and rural neighborhoods, and the citizenry as a whole, more say in important decisions.
The mayor and council should publicly make it clear that they disagree with these unwarranted and inflammatory attacks on the reputation of Haldi Road residents.
For their part, the editor and columnist should stop puffing up their commentaries and instead put their bicycle pumps back in the hall closet where they belong. We need insight, not sensationalism, to sort out this issue.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
If I only had credentials. (Sigh)
It seems to me that the facts speak for themselves as to which paper and which writers published the point of view. Why are they not names? Is this some sort of reporter/writer/journalist etiquette?
I happen to have read one of them by chance. Now I have to go hunt for the second one. :-(
“the result is to obscure and ignore some key facts” …. yes …. that is the normal purpose of opinion pieces … to try to sway the reader to the side of the writer. Those writers typically present their side of the debate and leave out the other sides.
Newspapers are not the Discovery Channel or Scientific America.
Gus, Pete McMartin, Vancouver Sun.
Gus, Neil Godbout Prince George Citizen. Both went to the same Journalist school.
Thank you once again Peter Ewart for an excellent article of facts not smoke screen antics, and smear campaigns, such as we are getting from the Citizen editorials. We cancelled our subscription to the Citizen years ago ….it is getting worse not better so we have saved ourselves the time of reading their garbage.
The taxpayers of Prince George should be getting excited about who and what is behind all the the posturing behind the new OCP amendment which if passed, will “Permit affordable housing and/or special needs housing, at densities Council considers appropriate, in all residential areas, including rural areas.”
The Public Meeting Notice put out by the City of Prince George would lead us to believe that this OCP change will apply only to 5877 Leslie Road and is hosting the meeting at the Vanway School, near 5877 Leslie Road which is located approx. 10 k’s from city centre. How convenient is this for all city residents, i.e. Hart Highway on the other end of town?
Anyone opposed to this OCP change which will affect ALL NEIGHBORHOODS IN PRINCE GEORGE, should not only object to the OCP change but to the way the city is trying to slip this by the taxpayers by leading them to believe it will affect only one small part of the city.
If this OCP amendment is passed, A therapeutic centre, housing up to 30+ people, could appear nextdoor to you in the near future. Just imagine how much fun it will be to have all this new activity next door.
If you oppose this OCP amendment, attend the Public Meeting Jan. 10th at 7:00 pm at the Vanway Elementary School and be heard, otherwise you will have to be happy with whatever City Council thinks is best for you.
Also, there is an on-line petition opposing this amendment at http://www.petitiononlinecanada.com. Look for “City of Prince George to decline OCP Bylaw.” It’s time we let City Hall know the OCP is a legal document to be followed, not one to be changed at the whim of council to accommodate private specialinterest groups for profits. Neighborhoods’ concerns should be heeded, not ignored.
All of the city of Prince George will be affected by this proposed OCP change, not just 5877 Leslie Road as the City would have taxpayers believe. Having the required Public Meeting held at the Vanway School, approx. 10 k’s from city centre, means it will be inconvenient and even difficult for residents on the other end of the city to attend. How likely is it that concerned and affected people in Hart Highway/upper Foothills, North Nechako, Cranbrook Hill, Otway, Blackburn for instance, will attend the meeting at Vanway especially with winter driving conditions. Maybe part of the plan is to have as few as possible attend this meeting ….fewer obstacles, better chance to slip this OCP change past the citizens of Prince George.
It would be interesting to know how many letters to the editor were written in regards to the editorial by Neil Godbout.
Is it possible that the **editor** did not print some of these letters because they did not agree with his position on the treatment centre?????
The City will also try and change to OCP so that they can sell off the Pine Valley Golf courses. Seems they just do whatever the hell they want to do, and the rest of us can take a hike. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
To Palapu,
I’ve stopped writing letters to the Citizen editor, because letters written against the views of the editor are not printed. They are however printed by the Free Press.
You are right about the OCP, if the OCP doesn’t allow City to do something, they change the OCP….see what they are doing with the Haldi situation. Even when they lost a court case because they didn’t follow the OCP, they are now proceeding to amend the OCP so they can do as they like against the neighbourhood’s protest. But this time it is not only the Haldi residents, it is all of the residents of Prince George that will be affected by the proposed OCP amendment. Residents of Prince George have to wake up to this bullying and stop the city from amending the OCP by coming out to the meeting on Jan. 10th because their neighborhood could be next.
Palopu: “The City will also try and change to OCP so that they can sell off the Pine Valley Golf courses. “
So you say it’s ok for the City to be in the golf business, but you’re critical of organizations like the Cougars, and wouldn’t be sad to see them go. Double standard? I think so.
Thank you Peter from the Haldi Rd neighbourhood.
Not a double standard at all JohnnyBelt.
You like a lot of other people in Prince George seem to have a problem coming to the realization that the Cougers Franchise is a **PRIVATE BUSINESS**.
Dont confuse a Private Business with skating rinks, swimming pools, parks, golf courses, etc;etc; that are owned by the City and operated for the good of all citizens of that City.
The Pine Valley Golf Course is leased to an operator, who pays a portion of the gross revenue to the City. The City could if they choose run this course with thier own staff. It is a public facility, that generates revenue for the City.
The Cougars on the other hand are a private business who lease ice from the City for 36 home games per year. The problem is they do not generate enough revenue to pay for a decent lease arrangement, and in effect the City is subsidizing this business, with tax dollars.
We should not continue to subsidize the Cougars. If the people of Prince George will not attend these games in sufficient numbers, to allow this franchise to make some money and pay thier own way, then they should leave.
great article that actually tells another side of what is really going on..city railroading a neighborhood for the benefit of special interest groups and their own agenda..not the first time this has happened recently..all neighborhoods beware as you could be next… is it sicklygreen or sick of green
The two articles written from the south and the articles written by Godbout have similar wordings. Even a couple of the pictures for the southern article are from the Citizen.
Of course these two know each other – journalism is a small world…..Neither could stick to the facts as Peter has explained. Couple of leftist duffus IMHO.
I signed the petition that geepee mentions:
http://www.petitiononlinecanada.com. Look for “City of Prince George to decline OCP Bylaw.”
I signed the dike petition (kudos to those who had the knowledge and courage to start that one) I will sign any petition to help stop this city council getting more out of control.
Most people in this town could not care a less. It takes people with courage and values to fight what they believe in. Keep up the good work people. Maybe the two groups can boost the momentum.
Again as geepee said- this OCP change is for the WHOLE city not just one area. Shame on the city for not informing its citizens – causing more distrust.
“You like a lot of other people in Prince George seem to have a problem coming to the realization that the Cougers Franchise is a **PRIVATE BUSINESS**.”
There are no private swimming pools or skating rinks that I’m aware. So why is it ok that the City in the Golf Business competing with those other Golf Courses which are ** PRIVATE BUSINESSES ** in town?
As for the golf course I would support that before the cougars….Gee, did the core review not look at the huge tax dollars we are subsidizing the Cougars with?
By the way the pictures I mentioned were taken by Brent Braaten, Photographer for the Citizen. Need I say more?
Comments for this article are closed.