Editor,

My wife and I attended the League of Women Voters meeting earlier this month and found the debate exchanges interesting.

My particular interest is the Langley water bond. I noticed the topic occupied the Langley City Council contestants, as well as the “pro” and “con” spokespersons for the bond issue itself.

My one complaint on substance is the “con” advocate said that his household would be forced to hook up to sewer if it was extended to Edgecliff.

That’s actually not so. Hookup is optional. It is true that, as he emphasized later, sewer hookup will be required when he leaves the property to his children; and then to his grandchildren. However, as generations pass, so too does the vulnerability and life expectancy of a septic system; if and when his septic fails, he would be grateful there is a sewer trunk to hook up to nearby.

The polarization of east Langley residents on this subject is, to a large extent, dependent on their individual self interest. Residents of a 15,000-square-foot lot inland from Edgecliff may in truth want the sewer so as to subdivide the lot or add auxiliary dwelling units; and thus add, hopefully, to the diminishing stock of Langley affordable housing.

Residents who want to maintain a rural environment will want nothing to do with any infrastructure development that allows densification. All residents, including myself, should want to preserve trees for their carbon footprint and water transpiration mitigation.

My prescription is, if the bond passes, which I hope it will, let’s all then sit down together with civility and recognize that it is not just the allowances that emerge from infrastructure enhancement, it is the way we execute that counts; balancing individual, community, ecological and environmental interests to the best of our abilities.

Peter Morton

Langley