by Contributor on Tuesday Aug 04 2009
Regarding the Celgar/Castlegar debacle, I wonder that many people seem to be so clearly on one side or the other.
Does it not occur to anyone to question the City's reported refusal to engage in dialogue with Celgar over the past three years? If true, does that refusal not demonstrate a level of arrogance that matches, if not exceeds, Celgar's arrogance in refusing to abide by the law? If true, the City's refusal to engage in dialogue could well be seen as the opening volley in this skirmish rather than Celgar's refusal to pay its tax bill.
And even if the City did fire the first shot, can Celgar really claim to be justified in flaunting the law after the fact rather than pursuing their efforts to be heard, perhaps through the Province or the Courts, PRIOR to the issuing of a bill that they must surely have known was coming?
Rather than defending one side and vilifying the other, I suggest it might behoove Castlegar -- and, yes, RDCK -- residents and Celgar employees to call both parties to task and demand that they sit down and resolve this issue like mature adults, even if that means submitting to some form of arbitration.
As for Mr. Zaitsoff's ultimatum to the City, do the terms "grandstanding" and "political opportunism" ring a bell? Either help solve the problem or stay off the field, Sir.