Dear editor,

Your editorial of Jan. 28 comes to unsubstantiated, appalling conclusions. 鈥淚ts supporters must look beyond the rhetoric鈥�? You should do so and examine the facts.

The legal challenge to KIP鈥檚 original proposal was not engineered by TAG, but was the result of incomplete work done at the CVRD by an individual no longer employed by the CVRD. A judge decided that certain parties had not been properly consulted.

TAG publicly supports reasonable development carried out in the best interests of Union Bay taxpayers.

鈥淭AG is upset because Union Bay residents pay higher taxes than are levied by the next-door Deep Bay Improvement District.鈥� TAG backed up its assertion with facts and figures, if you care to look. 鈥淒e Jersey explained that TAG was essentially comparing apples to oranges.鈥�

Did he back up his assertion with facts and figures? Of course not, the current regime never does.

Not mentioned in your editorial is the fact that UBID has no strategic business plan that would address the future costs of water, fire protection and sewers.

I was at the UBID board meeting where there was an alleged 鈥渕ob鈥� atmosphere. No, de Jersey was not there and there was no 鈥渕ob鈥� atmosphere.

For your information, taxpayers supporting the TAG principles include professional accountants, engineers, management consultants and present and current business owners.

Trustee Livesay tried to get to the bottom of unsubstantiated accusations of breaches in confidentiality through a legal letter, which had to be initiated by the administrator and three trustees without the knowledge or consent of the full board.

The administrator denied responsibility and took over the meeting and answered for the chair.

Does asking questions 鈥渟ubvert鈥� the workings of the board? I don鈥檛 think so.

You think de Jersey can substantiate that in-camera information was leaked? Then let him do it.

Choose to believe de Jersey over Livesay and Goldswain? Not a chance.

Gordon Hood,

Buckley Bay