Dear Editor,
When Langley City councillors were elected last fall, homelessness was a known issue within the City limits. June 24 council meeting, they voted in favour of the need for a second vote to ban homeless sleeping in Rotary Centennial Park.
Councillor Rosemary Wallace was the only ‘no’ vote, citing her “heart could not support this bylaw.”
City councillors are voted to council to apply their overview of situations, critical thinking and problem solving efforts to best practices for civic situations. ‘Heart support’ of bylaws is rarely a criteria needed in a bylaw vote. Criteria to provide rational, on-topic arguments issues is required.
Councillor Storteboom put forth a well-thought out, on-topic series of comments towards this important council vote.
Councillor Wallace offered impractical nebulous “lack of heart support” points, irrelevant to the issue. She felt she must state/stress that she ‘meant not disrespect to council when she voted against the second ban, as she “believes her colleagues are doing the best they can.”
As a Langley City voter/taxpayer, I, too, stress no disrespect of Councillor Wallace, probably, too, doing the best she can – possibly learning to incorporate problem solving and critical thinking, rational criteria, and on-topic arguments on City issues rather than impractical, specious unrelated “heart support” criteria.
As Langley City councillors, the job is to make clear arguments, on topic, often on difficult (and political) decisions. Nothing to do with ‘heart’ feelings but well reasoned, verbally adept policies for the City to put forward to higher levels of government, both provincial and federal who have much greater policy/implementation abilities than municipal bodies.
Thank you, Langley City councillors, for your effort and informed opinions on addressing important City issues.
Sybil Carter, Langley City