Dear Editor,

When 91原创 City councillors were elected last fall, homelessness was a known issue within the City limits. June 24 council meeting, they voted in favour of the need for a second vote to ban homeless sleeping in Rotary Centennial Park.

Councillor Rosemary Wallace was the only 鈥榥o鈥� vote, citing her 鈥渉eart could not support this bylaw.鈥�

City councillors are voted to council to apply their overview of situations, critical thinking and problem solving efforts to best practices for civic situations. 鈥楬eart support鈥� of bylaws is rarely a criteria needed in a bylaw vote. Criteria to provide rational, on-topic arguments issues is required.

Councillor Storteboom put forth a well-thought out, on-topic series of comments towards this important council vote.

Councillor Wallace offered impractical nebulous 鈥渓ack of heart support鈥� points, irrelevant to the issue. She felt she must state/stress that she 鈥榤eant not disrespect to council when she voted against the second ban, as she 鈥渂elieves her colleagues are doing the best they can.鈥�

As a 91原创 City voter/taxpayer, I, too, stress no disrespect of Councillor Wallace, probably, too, doing the best she can 鈥� possibly learning to incorporate problem solving and critical thinking, rational criteria, and on-topic arguments on City issues rather than impractical, specious unrelated 鈥渉eart support鈥� criteria.

As 91原创 City councillors, the job is to make clear arguments, on topic, often on difficult (and political) decisions. Nothing to do with 鈥榟eart鈥� feelings but well reasoned, verbally adept policies for the City to put forward to higher levels of government, both provincial and federal who have much greater policy/implementation abilities than municipal bodies.

Thank you, 91原创 City councillors, for your effort and informed opinions on addressing important City issues.

Sybil Carter, 91原创 City