Re: “Delays would be costly,” editorial, Jan. 10.
Even after a third reading of the editorial, I was still asking myself: And the point is?
Is it that the number of years in making a project directly correspond to it being a better project? That major construction has yet to start is a negative rather than a valuable opportunity for sober second thought?
“A reckless pace [of construction] is not a good idea”, but a potentially reckless project is OK? That the alleged $1 million in additional cost for each month’s delay is more important than the $1.2 million that will be saved in the completed project’s monthly operating costs?
That consideration of “nervous” companies, “which have already invested millions in the project,” is more important than consideration of nervous Capital Regional District taxpayers about to invest hundreds of millions and be on the hook for any cost overruns?
John Farquharson
Victoria
