To the editor:
Re: "Gen Why a legitimate voice of public interest," Letters, Jan. 25.
I agree with Patrick Quinn that the evolution of our city should not be left solely in the hands of developers or any one group. However, there is a difference between private and public, despite Roy Langston's argument. Otherwise any group capable of yelling loudly enough would have the ability to alter ownership and use of any "fee simple title," including private residences.
The point missed by Quinn, Langston and Mahoney is that collective rights should not trample on individual rights, for that is the real offense to reason and justice. I support arts and culture in this town and would loathe to see the loss of a venue like the Waldorf. But I am offended by knee-jerk reactions that blindly condemn development and change, a simplistically inflammatory response to critical, complex situations.
On an important side note, the mob mentality response of the Waldorf social media supporters seemed rather pathetic in light of the rapid revelation that the MC-2 zoning (in place since 2002) of that entire block does not permit development of condos. There was no need for the city to put on a show of protecting the Waldorf as it is already protected, as long as the city doesn't change the existing zoning. And there is absolutely no good reason for that to happen.
Wendy Brichon, Vancouver
