Okotoks’ growth not sustainable
Wednesday, Feb 05, 2014 06:00 am
In regards to the Jan. 29 article by Jessica Patterson on Okotoks' New Sustainability Plan costing $100,000; I arrive here about 10 years ago and have read many glowing articles in this paper about the town of Okotoks sustainability plans based on capping the town's population at 30,000. I was skeptical. Sure enough when the population hit 30,000 all that was forgotten and now your paper is merrily writing glowing articles about spending $100,000 on sustainability plans for a population capped at 80,0000. What do you think will happen 10 years form now when Okotoks hits 80,000? Is it too much to as for a little bit of critical thinking by your reports and editorial staff? Why not state the obvious flip flop by politicians and ask if it will happen again?
Also the word sustainability was used at least 20 times in the article. Does the reporter not understand that the only reason we can live in this part of the world is we burn natural gas to light and heat our homes and petroleum products to drive our vehicles. These are fossil fuels and while I support their responsible development none of our current lifestyle at this location is really sustainable so why so blindly use the term?
I would appreciate it if you all would use a little more thought before writing and printing these articles, it would make reading your paper much more enjoyable.