Climate-change claim is a weak justification

Re: “Putting Clover Point changes into perspective,” commentary, Aug. 18.

I’ll be succinct. Accusing Andrew Weaver of being intellectually incapable of appreciating the wisdom of the Clover Point redesign, and carrying on to complain that the ideas driving the plan are difficult to understand, is the height of arrogance, and typifies why there is often a disconnect between planners and the public. Planning ain’t rocket science.

The redevelopment of Clover Point is an abysmal planning failure with one redeeming feature: It should provide planning schools with material around the theme of “how not to” for years to come.

More specifically, public consultation and input were minimal, a traffic circulation problem has been created as drivers wait or line up to turn round, and the oftenwindswept environment is unsuited to the use of picnic tables most of the year.

Climate change is the overwhelming issue of the age, but the resources directed at Clover Point could have been better utilized elsewhere.

Modifying Clover Point is not going to affect automobile ownership or use. Frankly, the argument that it’s about climate change seems like an inadequate retrospective justification for a planning mistake.

Frank Duerden Victoria