Private ‘parkland’ could have better signage

Re: Parkland removal ruins stroll for resident (Letters, June 10)


Shirley Stirrett is confused about words and concepts essential to our successful society that she gets great benefits from, in her letter regarding a development adjacent to a park.

A “park” exists only by definition of the land owner. Often that is the collective, presumably Langford in the area of her concern, or perhaps B.C. (which has, for example, let people use their property adjacent to Cuthbert Holmes Park in Saanich as if it were part of that park).

Private landowners often let people use their property, but should sign it as “by permission.” They are increasingly concerned about vandalism and liability as society deteriorates, and the “deep pockets” notion of Marxism infiltrates the justice system, no matter who is at fault when an injury occurs.

There is land in Langford that sat unused for a long time, reserved for freeway widening, but was recently sold by the provincial government to private persons who built houses on it (along Bellamy Link on the north side of the freeway approaching Millstream Road).

And, of course, land here and there that is privately owned, but hasn’t been used for much. But with increasing demand for residential accommodation, more of it is being used.

Hopefully, once houses are built, access can be allowed through the housing area, which would benefit homeowners by giving access to any collectively owned park land nearby.

Meanwhile, the landowner will want to keep people out due to risk during construction. Ms. Stirrett should recognize that and always respect what owners of private property want to allow.

Keith SketchleySaanich