The city is so poor, (insert second part here)

Councillor Churnushenko,

I realize your political background and leanings mean you will likely trend in certain directions on certain issues. That you will support the concept of yet another multi-million dollar foot bridge over the canal boggles my mind.

The city is crying poor, so much so that we’re cutting back OC Transpo service, resulting in seniors and anyone without cars to be inconvenienced to various degrees, garbage collection (I’ve tried to “discuss” this with you, getting a form letter in return) being scaled back, and other services being restrained because the city can’t afford them moving forward.

How you can justify investing millions into something that is NOT a core city service at this time is beyond me. You want fiscal responsibility and to dial costs back so that the city can continue to be the great and wonderful city it can be for decades? Then vote NO for anything that isn’t a CORE city service. A bridge that won’t enhance emergency services’ abilities to do their work, a bridge that won’t stop sewage from backing up into citizens’ houses, a bridge that won’t get make an 80+ year old couple walk blocks so they can catch a bus to get to church on Sunday is NOT a core service.

Times are lean, we’re told? Then we must vote no for all frills. This is one of them.

Please revise your position and remind your fellow councillors what the theme of this Council is.

If you want a bridge, support it when we can afford it – please.