More questions than answers

Editor:rnI read with interest the brief notes from the June 6th council meeting in your June 15th paper. Specifically where councilor Shields discussed and made a motion to put in a sidewalk, and parallel parking along Tamarack Drive and the eastern boundary of Rattlesnake Canyon. The Mayor agreed with the suggestion.
I would suggest to council that before you put in a sidewalk and parking on Tamarack that you look at continuing the sidewalk that stops at the beginning of the Windmill property. As it is now, pedestrian traffic has to go out onto Highway #3 because vehicle occupants are visiting or working at Rattlesnake Canyon, and they park nose in. In order to get by them, pedestrians have to walk on the Highway. This is dangerous. There must be a sidewalk there! This land belongs to the Town!rn Also, the vehicles that park where the sidewalk should be back out on to the Highway¦how dangerous is this with big rigs coming down the highway?
When the workers & summer visitors park there, the fire hydrant is not only hidden from view but also totally non-functional¦ Hello!
Tamarack is not wide enough for angle parking on the east side by the park (big RV's rear ends are out onto the pavement) & parallel parking on the west side. In the summer this puts it down to a one-lane road. What happens if ambulance or police need to use the road? Perhaps this is a ploy to shut off Tamarack from Highway #3 and reroute the traffic through residential neighborhoods? This would sure give Rattlesnake Canyon a large chunk of Tamarack for parking. Surely this can't be the reason for allowing parking on both sides could it? Say it ain't so, Mr. Mayor.
All of this comes because Rattlesnake Canyon has not provided proper parking for their visitors as they said they would! The taxpayers of the town should not be responsible to supply this for them! The owners purchased four houses, two for the racetrack space and two for the required parking spaces. The houses for the parking area are still occupied. Why?rnMr. Editor, I would like to comment on the Mayor's response in your paper May 25th to the article Mr. Emery and I did on proposed traffic patterns for the east side in your paper May 18th.
We are still awaiting any communications from the Mayor after 23 days when it was stated May 25th that they should have a date for a meeting with us within the week.
It was also stated that the intent was to have the drawings on the walls sometime in June. I wonder whose walls and if that means June of this year?rnIt was also stated that there would be parking lost along Highway #3. Two places that have congested parking along Highway #3 are Motel Row, and downtown Osoyoos. Does this loss of parking mean a widening of the road? If so, then the bridge must be widened, and also Main Street would lose parking.
Where would visitors park that want to visit the Pioneer Walkway and stop for a rest and picnic?rnA 3 or 4 lane freeway all the way from east to west through downtown Osoyoos? Is this what the article is inferring?
Lastly Mr. Editor, I never realized that the word FIRST in conjunction with a Draft was the same as FINAL in conjunction with a Draft.
QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS . . . WILL WE EVER GET THE ANSWERS?rnFred CawdellrnOsoyoos

Editor:rnIn the month of April we visited Smitty's on a Wednesday evening for pasta nite with wine, our bill came to $42.60; then in May on receiving our statement we noticed the charge of $43.93. Keeping this in mind and visiting Smitty's again on Wednesday night with intention of seeing if this could happen again.
On receiving our May statement there was a credit of $43.93 and a debit of $42.60 thus putting everything back in order, so no complaint necessary. Since then every charge has been correct and we must thank Smitty's for this correction. It is good to frequent an establishment with whom you can feel confident.
Gordon and Margaret MackayrnOsoyoos