Refreshing letter or . . .?

What a refreshing letter by Glen Heredia of Richmond in the Richmond Review! At least that’s what I think, but what do you think?
We have lots of visitors to this blog every day but only the occasional comment. Perhaps Garden City lands people tend toward bashful? In any case, we welcome comments as long as they follow a few [...]

Ted Townsend Reveals Much

The City, through spokesperson Ted Townsend, is suddenly singing a different tune about how the Garden City lands will eventually be divided if the agreements aren’t terminated. He is quoted in a Jan. 19 Richmond Review article, “Feds should take land back: Cummins,” with this comment on MP John Cummins’ recent letter about the Lands:
“There’s [...]

Comments on MP John Cummins’ Letter

The Jan. 18 Richmond News and Jan. 19 Richmond Review include a Garden City lands letter from MP John Cummins.  It’s great that the Richmond community has made known its Garden City City lands views to Mr. Cummins and that he has acted. Mr. Cummins is correct in the main points, including these ones:

·        The Musqueam do not [...]

The Shrinking 68-58-48 Acres

Barbara Huisman’s excellent letter to the editor  in the Jan. 10 Richmond Review corrects some false impressions and at the same time shows how other falsehoods have been repeated so often that even an astute and knowledgeable reader like Ms. Huisman can assume them to be true. An example is the falsehood that the Garden City lands [...]

What the heck is “contiguous” about?

Recent editions of the Richmond Review and Richmond News included a letter over the name of a Chamber of Commerce representative, though seemingly written by the would-be developers of the Garden City lands. People have been asking about the use of the word contiguous to describe the Public Lands (almost the same as “City lands”), [...]