"An informed decision at the time of the plebiscite will serve us all well."
I read the blog post from Lilly Sproule, dated July 12/17 - "...his statements are irrelevant."
What Ms. Sproule is critical about in relation to my post, can also be said about the Preliminary Feasibility Study as the study did not, in my opinion, demonstrate why the projects listed in the study at page 15 voted in favour of a Rural Community. It would seem to me that without this piece of information, the information in the Preliminary Feasibility Study in relation to the LSD’s that chose to vote for a rural community is also irrelevant. I fail to see how providing additional information for residents to consider, even if it is considered as negative by some, can be considered “irrelevant”.
Having said this, I do not really believe that the information provided in the Preliminary Feasibility Study is irrelevant, there was actually some very insightful information contained therein. The reason that I posted about the LSD’s that voted to remain status quo vs. rural community was simply to provide additional information, information that was omitted from the Preliminary Feasibility Study. A balanced report provides information that allows residents to make a “more informed” decision. An informed decision at the time of the plebiscite will serve us all well.
In closing, what I posted was not meant to be “negative”, simply information intended to complete/complement the statement made at page 15 of the Preliminary Feasibility Study (telling the whole story).
I enjoyed the Open House on July 12/17, as well as the discussions held.