To the editor:
Hi! My name is Fred Cooper and I read your article, posted 09/24/13, about my complaint on an issue of inequity regarding the paving on Hiob Road.
I thought I’d bring you up to speed on the on goings of this issue. As noted in your article, the vote was against my complaint and the mayor sent me a letter, dated 10/01/13, regarding the Council’s decision and reason for that decision, i.e. a policy intended to protect the homeowner against costs incurred due to damage to property caused by the City, in the course of doing work necessary for the municipality.
I understand how this policy applied to my neighbours and their circumstances. I also understand how this policy did not apply to me, or my circumstances. The same way this policy did not apply to most people in Revelstoke, no damage was done to anyone’s property. However, when I submit a complaint regarding an inequity in cost to the homeowner, like magic the policy that never applied to me or my circumstances, is applied to me and my circumstances. Not only is this policy applied to me, but it’s offered up as the rationale behind the reason for dismissing my complaint of an inequity in cost to me, a homeowner. I really don’t understand this kindergarten logic? It seems obvious to me that what is needed here is a new additional policy that actually does cover my circumstance and complaint.
In previous emails to Council I make reference to me being “penalized”, I’d like to explain my reasoning for this.
As stated in my previous letter to Council, I had it on good authority that Hiob Road was due to be paved the following spring. In an effort to piggyback on this City initiative I decided to get my driveway replaced at the same time. In preparation for the paving crew’s arrival, I had a cement pad installed from my carport to the property line. This replaced a section of my existing driveway. There was still a section of my driveway running from my cement pad connecting to the existing road. This section of driveway was damaged from the heavy machinery running over it. Had I known that I was going to be “penalized” by the City for removing that damaged section, I never would have paid for its removal. If I would have left that damaged section in place, then the policy quoted would have applied to my circumstances and I would never have had a complaint in the first place. However, as I did pay to have that damaged section removed, now I’m being “penalized”. I don’t understand why it is going to cost me $400 to $500 more to have exactly what my neighbours have, when all I’ve done is pay for my own work in preparation for the paving crew?
I’ve submitted another letter to the City Council, asking that my issue regarding this inequity be discussed and considered again. It is hoped that the Council will understand that this is an issue of inequity, and further understand that the policy quoted has absolutely no relevance to me, my circumstances, or my complaint. As Mr. Thomas attended the last Council meeting to explain this, most useful policy, I think it only fair that someone now take the time to explain to Council how irrelevant this policy is to my complaint and circumstance. I hope this gets done!
Sincerely,
Fred Cooper
Revelstoke
