Opinion

Moms of Princeton and Area H respond to referendum results

Shocked, saddened and angered by what has happened within our community.

I have been thinking a lot about collateral damage lately. Members of our community have become victims.

Regarding a statement from a grandmother in a letter to the editor “I have watched my grandchildren flourish as wonderful swimmers and athletes”.

I am sending this letter to both of our local newspapers. I found your front page story in last week’s Spotlight ethically irresponsible which is why I am writing this to both our community newspapers.

I have been a resident of Princeton for the last 18 years and have seen change in this town. Over that time frame, I have held different forms of employment; of late I had the privilege of working in the community directly with the residents in regard to Community Literacy and Youth Capacity.

When my sister was little, a boy threw a large rock and hit her in the head on purpose. About eight other kids witnessed this, but were unable to stop him in time. My sister was fortunate that even at four her mounds of curly hair acted as a large cushion to the blow. She started wailing and the boy ran away.

The public discussion over the aquatic centre referendum is interesting, both sides of the question have valid meaningful points.

Ed Staples and Nienke Klaver had it right, Spotlight Sept.7/11, only they were much too diplomatic to spell it out.

It would appear that 1998 was an important year in the evolution of the Princeton Aquatic Centre saga. The "Town of Princeton Proposal for a New Indoor Aquatic Centre for Princeton and District" brochure takes that year as a starting point, and so does the Information Sheet distributed to all Area 'H' residents.