Explore every alternative before selling Centennial Park

A reader urges council to prove no other site works before approving the sale of waterfront parkland to the Humane Society.

I like the direction you're taking. I would, however, avoid sounding as though you're opposed to the Humane Society. Instead, frame it as a question of **good stewardship of public assets** and **finding the best long-term solution**. That will likely resonate more with council members and the public.

I want to begin by saying that I fully support the important work of the Sarnia & District Humane Society. They provide an essential service to our community, and I agree that they deserve a modern, permanent facility that meets the needs of both the animals and the people they serve.

My concern is not with the Humane Society. My concern is with the proposed sale of public parkland.

Waterfront and parkland are among the City's most valuable public assets. Once land is sold, it is gone forever. Future councils and future generations cannot easily recover those spaces.

Before declaring any portion of Centennial Park surplus, I respectfully ask Council to ensure that every reasonable alternative has been thoroughly explored.

Questions I hope Council will consider include:

• Have all vacant commercial and industrial properties within the city been evaluated?
• Have other City-owned lands been considered?
• Could an existing building be repurposed rather than constructing on parkland?
• Has a comprehensive analysis been completed demonstrating that this is truly the only practical location?

The Humane Society has indicated that donor confidence depends on owning the land. I understand and respect that position. However, that should not automatically lead to the sale of public parkland if suitable alternatives exist.

Council has a responsibility to balance today's needs with the long-term stewardship of public assets.

If, after a comprehensive and transparent review, Centennial Park is determined to be the only viable option, then that conclusion should be supported by clear evidence that alternative sites were seriously considered and found unsuitable.

I encourage Council to take the time to complete that analysis before making an irreversible decision.

The Humane Society deserves a permanent home.

The residents of Sarnia also deserve confidence that every reasonable alternative has been explored before public waterfront parkland is sold.

Thank you for your consideration.

I think this is a stronger argument because it doesn't criticize the Humane Society or question their need. Instead, it asks Council to demonstrate due diligence before disposing of public land. That is a position many people—regardless of where they stand on the issue—can appreciate.