Once again the 700-plus people who signed Centennial RV Park petition, the many who returned feedback forms or wrote letters, or those who spoke up to protest building the hotel on this particular site, suffer from a “lack of prominence.”

So, regardless if you were a longtime business owner, like my husband, a teacher, a former councillor, a police officer, or longtime resident and taxpayer, your voice was not counted as important. If you are a senior or retiree you have to know that you don’t count, unless of course you are a “prominent member of the community” or have a “prominent voice in the community.”

Not one person who spoke at the public hearing was protesting a hotel. The objection was to destroying a much used campsite/RV park and thriving business. Although this was stated many times, the pro side still insisted that there was only one option: Kill the current business, and give this site to the new business. How would any business owner feel if this happened to them?

Our local businesses could have benefited from supporting both. They will now lose significant income from the RV tourists. They will gain some from the short-term hotel visitors, but they could have had both. We could have worked together and supported our elected officials to have both.

One speaker who has been coming to Centennial for many years and usually stays for five months, stated they have spent $2,500 just in their first two weeks in Oliver. This parttime resident and her husband consider our park, (which is rated as the fourth best RV park in all of BC), as their destination resort. She stated that if the park was gone they really had no reason to return to Oliver. They thought they had always been welcome as tourists, but the mocking that took place of that speaker on May 23rd was shameful. Apparently her voice was not important.

I was naive enough to believe that the public hearing was not just a formality, and that everyone would actually be heard as an equal.

The comparison of which visitors would spend more money in Oliver was based on the misconception that people who stay in a hotel are richer and therefore spend more in town. Ignored was the fact that RVers often stay weeks, or even months when the park was open in the winter. Hotel visitors usually stay 1-3 nights. Do the math based on mostly weekend visitors compared to longterm tourists and visitors. Also do the math to include a year-round RV park, not one that was closed by the Town for seven months of the year.

Some who spoke at the meeting said they couldn’t use Centennial Park. Really? It is open for business to everyone, locals or tourists who want to camp.

Yes, you can go in and walk through Centennial Park, even picnic for free as long as you are not in an occupied or reserved site. I would guess all the people who said, “I can’t go there” have never tried.

Did you know you can also enjoy our Community Park, Lion’s Park, Kiwanis Park, Kinsman Park, the benches and tables just north of this Centennial Park? All of these are just steps away from Centennial Park.

Many Oliver residents may not camp at Centennial, but their family and friends do. Some of the people who stay in Centennial are here to enjoy the weather and the community. Others are here for archery, Festival of the Grape, baseball camp, baseball tournaments, golfing, winery tours, family reunions, school reunions, temporary work, the firefighters training weekend, overseas visitors.

One speaker suggested a site already zoned for hotel just north of Lion’s Park. Some protested saying that was too far from town. Really? Two blocks from downtown, nice quiet spot right beside Lion’s park is too far?

Apparently the people who simply wanted to support a hotel in a different location and thus retain a viable long-term business were touted as simply being emotional and not being logical. May I pose a simple question of logic to the business owners, mayor and council? If you had the chance to have two businesses, one with long-term visitors, one with short-term visitors, would you consider all of those visitors valuable?

Centennial Park has 44 sites not 35, and visitors are primarily from BC, not “out of province” as reported at the public hearing.

There were other errors, too.

For example when asked if the developer would only consider this site, there was a lot of evasion and then finally the answer was a tremulous yes.

In a May 5 article by writer Roy Wood, Mr Mundi (the hotelier) stated he would definitely consider another site if this site was not available after the public hearing.

There is no guarantee that the developer will proceed and build on this flood plain.

Even if the developer does not proceed we still lose the park.

Gail Blidook, Oliver