Editor:
It really shouldn’t surprise me, given council’s complete lack of fiscal responsibility, but I really have to marvel at the waste being touted as cost savings in regards to the closing of the recycling depot.
With a better design, the property should have been more than adequate to accommodate the recycling depot and the new facility. Instead, council has chosen to go forward with an inefficient use of the space, close the depot, offload the costs of the reduced services onto residents and then tell us that they are saving us money.
Given their perspective, I’m not sure why the fire hall will still be standing on the property; it should be torn down and made into extra parking. Think of the savings to be had by not rebuilding it. Why not take closing the depot a step further? We should also give away all of the city’s trucks and stop door-to-door collection entirely. Think of the millions of dollars in savings to be had by not replacing them and the ongoing savings of no collection.
If they are not willing to re-examine the design, let me add my voice to those who would much rather see a new depot than the Q to Q Ferry. I would think the $4 million dollars being spent to run the ferry for the next six years is enough to purchase and run a new depot for more than a decade.
It would also give council a real asset they could waste in the future instead of just flushing that money down the river straight away.
One of these things promotes environmental responsibility, recycling, the tree canopy and combatting climate change. One is a photo op. Let’s get some much needed perspective happening in this city.
I also hope it’s not lost on voters that council’s solution to closing the depot is sending us all across the Bailey bridge to which they were once so vehemently opposed.
Brent Mitchell, New Westminster
