Re: Soccer plan would save the stadium, The Record, Sept. 5. Mr. Brett's analogy about Queen's Park Stadium going the way of the buffalo was quite apt - indeed if the Whitecaps proposal does not proceed, the historic stadium will continue to survive within a beautiful park environment, just as the bison does today.
What isn't apt is his purported representation of the residents of the Queen's Park neighbourhood. I was shocked to read your article in which Mr. Brett advises that the Queen's Park residents support the proposal. He indicates that his association put it to a vote and 58 per cent voted in favour of it.
I live within 100 metres of the baseball stadium, and I had no idea this vote took place. I received nothing in the mail or at my door. There were no notices on the neighbourhood's telephone poles. I did not read about it in the papers (given that Mr. Brett has the clout to call a press conference to announce the result of this vote, he no doubt could have issued a press release to announce the commencement of it). At no time did the association hold a residents' meeting to discuss and debate the proposal.
As I have a vested interest in the outcome, I am extremely disappointed the association made no effort to alert me about this vote.
Since you published this article, I have learned of many other residents in the neighbourhood who would have voted had they known to do so.
Since this article ran, Mr. Brett has outlined the machinations of this vote in an email he sent to another concerned resident. He advises "50 votes were counted, of which 58 per cent of them were yes votes." By my math, that breaks down to 21 against the proposal and 29 in favour. It is perplexing to me that Mr. Brett would stand in solidarity with the Whitecaps when so few residents actually supported their proposal.
I question why he did not disclose at this press conference the small number of people who voted. Or, if he did disclose it, why it wasn't reported. (Kudos to Mr. Woods of the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce who was more forthcoming with the numbers in the chamber's poll.)
Insinuating at this press conference the neighbourhood residents are in favour of this proposal when only 29 people voted for it is extremely misleading. I urge the city and city council to place little weight on the results of this vote.
Despite being named the Queen's Park Residents' Association, it does not represent all the residents in the neighbourhood. In this case, it
represents 50 members who participated in the association's vote. Further, no effort appears to have been made to expand the vote beyond the members of the association.
Of course, without a feasibility study being disclosed by the city, any opinion regarding this proposal is being made in a vacuum. I find it peculiar the city is soliciting the opinions of its citizens when it has failed to disclose the true cost of this proposal and how it will be financed along with a business plan, a traffic plan, a parking plan, a financial plan, artist renderings of the stadium, a plan for the relocation of the baseball diamond - the list can go on.
Without this information, how can anyone have an informed opinion for or against this proposal?
It would be imprudent and irresponsible for any city councillor to vote in favour of the Whitecaps without this full disclosure and the ensuing community debate it would generate.
If the city had allowed its citizens more information and time to digest this proposal, perhaps the Queen's Park Residents' Association could have taken the time to reach out to the whole of the community it purports to represent.
Elizabeth Stafford is a resident of the Queen's Park neighbourhood.
