Dear Editor,
Re: “White folks have double standards,” Letters online, Sept. 30.
I read Mr Fung’s letter with some concern regarding his analysis of the “mansion“ debate in Richmond. He asserts that “white folks“ embrace mansions as long as they are not constructed for “non-whites.”
His examples of the Hearst Castle and the Buble mansion in Burnaby being embraced by “white folks” are flawed. The controversial Hearst Castle is on virtually uninhabited land on the coast of California, and the 27,000 sq. ft. Buble mansion in Burnaby was, and is, the subject of significant neighbourhood wrath — well reported in the media.
It is unclear if Mr Fung is referring to residential construction, or that being built on farmland. The “mansion“ debate in Richmond is centred on those that have been built on the ALR, many in excess of 20,000 sq ft.
The concern of most residents was reflected in a Vancouver Sun poll where 78 per cent of respondents wanted further restrictions (currently 11,000 sq. ft.) on the size of farmland homes.
Richmond City staff saw the problem of attracting wealthy, mansion-loving non-farmers to farmland and commissioned an independent report (Site Economics) that recommended Richmond adopt the BC Provincial guidelines — a 5,300 sq ft. maximum.
This was fiercely opposed by a majority of Richmond councillors, many Richmond farmers, local realtors and developers. They covered the ethnic spectrum. Six ethnically diverse Richmond councillors caved to their well orchestrated campaign and election support . They “compromised“ with a limit of 11,000 sq ft mansions.
The result: Continuing speculation on farmland which now sells for up to $1 million per acre, which is strictly mansion appeal, and out of the reach of any potential farming enterprise.
To suggest the backlash on farmland mansions is race-based is to ignore the concern of Richmond citizens who do not want our farmland obliterated by pretentious non-farmer mansions.
John Baines
RICHMOND
