Anonymity helps protect advocate from anger

When the "done deal" appeared to be at risk, some of those affected financially got angry.

Editor: Re: “Anonymous tree advocate,” (The Times, May 27).

I read with interest Roland Seguin’s rant about not knowing the identity of Anna R. So nice that he is willing to advocate under his own name, but surely he is aware that Anna R. took a great risk in fighting those that invested $500,000 to develop the lands around her.

I personally saw the anger of several of these folks at the Civic Centre presentations, where it started to appear that their “done deal” may be at risk. Be assured that those that needed to confirm her credentials have done so. The rest of us don’t really care if she is an alien from Mars who saved us from a very poorly thought-out OCP that deserved nothing more than the result it got.

Those of us that appreciate a sober second thought with input from all those affected have nothing but praise for all the presenters who took much time and energy to see their community move forward in a reasonable way. The fact that Anna’s name has been chosen from among all presenters is in itself an indication that there was need for anonymity.

Sadly, Seguin sounds like one of those frustrated Brookswood/Fernridge developers who paid his $50,000 portion for the new OCP, and thinks that destroying his little part of the world is no one’s business but his own. After all, he pays his taxes.

The truth is, all parts are interwoven and connected. Nothing is done in isolation any more. The world has become too small for the rogue that cares for naught but his own benefit.

All of us are affected by the lack of drinking water, and the air we breathe, and so we should all be concerned as we look to the future.

B. Froebel,