Editor: Re: Writer witnessed aggressive acts (the Times, July 5)
I was not at the meeting in question, so I can’t argue one way or another about what happened.
Suffice to say, when people feel their health, safety, and well being are threatened, emotions can run high.
I do have some thoughts on the opinions offered by G. Lambert about the truck route designation for 216 Street, though.
First, 208 Street was not designated a truck route because it is a heavily populated residential area, and includes an elementary school.
It made no sense to make it a truck route, just as, for the same reasons, it makes no sense to designate that small portion of 216 Street south of 88 Avenue a truck route.
The reason 208 Street is being finished in sections is that the Township is waiting for each developer to pay the costs of upgrading the street in front of their development.
As a Langley taxpayer, I think the inconvenience of having the road take longer to complete because of this is worth the inconvenience.
Walnut Grove is not suffering from a lack of truck deliveries to service our businesses, and to say that Walnut Grove residents do not want any truck traffic to deliver groceries, etc. is ludicrous.
Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that we already have enough routes for trucks to take care of these deliveries and we do not need to damage a vibrant residential neighborhood to add another truck route to accomplish this.
Can you seriously argue that negatively impacting the health, safety, and well being of thousands of people, including hundreds of school children, is worth whatever amount of money the Township may receive by designating a short section of 216 Street a truck route? A truck route that is not even needed?
You need to come up with better arguments than that.
Howard Sale,
Langley