Posted 28 June 2011 - 11:53 AM
Just checking in here. I chose not to submit my long version as an opinion piece to the Telegraph, because the shorter version makes my key points, and is something that even casual readers can appreciate. The messages being: (1) residents haven't actually been asked whether they favor development, and (2) certain council members (really Miklos and Starsky, but I was too polite to name them) are consistently rude to the people they are supposed to represent, and should shape up.
We'll see if my letter is published in tomorrow's edition.
Debbie, while I sympathize with your environmental/wildlife perspective, I think it will not win the day. To casual observers, it probably comes off as some "fringe" people arguing too late about the "small stuff" after the deal is already done. The outrageous use of "lunatic fringe", which you mention was used at the council meeting, will unfortunately score points with some people.
Instead, when dealing with the city council, I think you should lead with the fact that, despite their claims to the contrary, resident wishes are not known, and that the council is moving forward without having secured resident approval. I think this will hit home more than anything else short of some unexpected legal angle. They will try to weasel out of it, but the truth is on our side, and if nothing else, we can make them look like liars, or else force them to admit that they are making this decision on their own, regardless of resident wishes.
Then, if enough people become aware of that, meaningful action can be undertaken - at which time the wildlife argument and other arguments can again be made.
Thanks for all you are doing.