Editor:
My response to Mr. Wilkinson’s letter (RMO 2021/02/25) is that he does not recognize the difference between a town and a city.
He is aware that downtown Canmore is crowded when tourists visit. Evidently, his vision of adding housing for up to 10,000 more “locals” will not add to the problem of downtown crowding.
He suggests Canmore’s visitors, and locals, will choose to shop in the commercial areas of Three Sisters Mountain Village instead of the boring art galleries, clothing retailers, and local eateries that are currently available in the downtown area.
Also, notice he considers Canmore to be a town that needs to be a “city.” I find it totally acceptable to find alternative shopping during once-a-month trips to neighbouring cities, at the same time living day-to-day in a town where I can walk to the grocery store, community center, or many fine restaurants.
The most outrageous part of the letter is an attempt to summarize the concerns of wildlife advocates.
The additional development will be a detriment to wildlife, but Mr. Wilkinson claims that the objections, which are based on decades of study and observation, are merely an objection that the TSMV will “interfere with your view.”
His solution is that we simply need to “create space,” which is a physical impossibility. The development project will change the use of space from wildlife corridor to housing project, but it will not create space. The wildlife will lose habitat and that is the real problem.
David Belitsky,
Canmore
