I know that I emailed you a copy of my letter regarding the train whistle and I have not changed my opinion, but after reading your article in this week’s Free Press all sorts of things are popping into mind.
I have a suspicion that this whole train whistle thing is driven more by real estate values and ability to be able to sell real estate than the "quality of life" reason that is being put forward. Now don't get me wrong, I totally understand how the whistle could affect a person’s reasoning when considering buying a property and if the City owns the old soccer field they may want to sell this property for housing, probably high end housing, which is perfectly fine. Why I ask is the, what I suspect, smoke screen of "quality of life" for City residents, being put forward, when in actual fact, in my opinion, it is more than likely to facilitate quicker real estate sales and development? Again, nothing wrong with that per se, just why does the council not have the proverbial "B---s” to tell everyone that? I would have more respect for the idea if it was stated right up front that this is the real reason instead of trying to hide what I think is the real reason. I may be wrong but there is something about this whole attempt to ban the whistle that just does not sound right, if 68 per cent of the people answering the Free Press poll are for the whistle then it hardly sounds like a grass roots organization that has come together to ban the whistle.
I have been told by people in the real estate business that the old soccer fields are cleared for housing as well. Now I am not sure how true that is but it would be interesting to know.
David R Gildea
Fernie